to permit them later to raise objections to the report for the first time on appeal. Matthews, 362 Ill.App.3d at 967, 299 Ill.Dec. 411, 842 N.E.2d at 161 (citation omitted). For the first time on appeal, Kong argues that his sentence should be vacated because the Circuit Court should not have considered his two prior convictions in Cr. No. 92-0138(3) because they had been dismissed about fifteen years earlier. Kong had an opportunity to object to the validity of these prior convictions as contained in his PSI report, but he failed to do so. Therefore, Kong waived this argument and these convictions referenced in his PSI report could be deemed as admitted. See Heggland, 118 Hawai'i at 445-46, 193 P.3d at 361-62 (citing inter alia United States v. Fagans, 406 F.3d 138, 142 (2d Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>)). There was no basis for the court to question
holding that the information contained in a presentence report is reliable because it is based upon the presentence officers research of the records contact with relevant agencies and the gathering of information which is required to be included in a presentence report holding that a defendants objection to facts in the presentence report on the basis that they went beyond any prior jury verdict or guilty plea is sufficient to prevent those facts from being relied upon in sentencing holding that the defendants prior conviction referenced in his presentence report could be taken as admitted because he had made no objection to the facts in his report holding that the defendant conceded the accuracy of his prior convictions in his psi report by failing to object to the report holding defendants statement that presentence report was correct did not constitute admission to the nature and cireumstances of the crime reflected in the report