of fact required before subjecting Mr. Berroa to a ten-year consecutive term.... ” Appellant’s Reply Br. at 26. Although the District Court referred to the crime as “an armed robbery,” it did not state at sentencing that the gun was discharged during the robbery. App. at 769. However, Berroa does not cite and we have not discovered authority supporting his assertion that an express finding on the record is required. Moreover, the District Court had ample support for its sentence from evidence adduced at trial and the PSR, which said “[Berroa] discharged the firearm into a refrigerator located in the store.” PSR ¶ 22. Berroa reviewed the PSR and did not dispute the finding that he had discharged a firearm during the robbery. See United States v. Siegel, 477 F.3d 87, 93-94 (3d Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>). Under these circumstances, the District
holding that a sentencing judge would violate section 3553a by limiting consideration of the applicable guidelines range to the facts found by the jury or admitted by the defendant instead of considering the applicable guidelines range as required by subsection 3553a4 based on the facts found by the court holding that district court may find facts to support both factors by adopting psr holding that the district court may adopt facts contained in the psr without further inquiry if the facts have an adequate evidentiary basis and the defendant does not present rebuttal evidence holding remand not required where district court relied on federal psr that incorporated facts from state psr not objected to by defendant to determine prior conviction was controlled substance offense for purposes of career offender sentence enhancement under guidelines holding that defendant adopted facts found in the psr by not objecting