He pled guilty to stealing guns. The offense to which he pled guilty thus encompasses the facts necessary to support both this enhancement and the minimum sentence, and therefore there was no Sixth Amendment violation regarding these facts. Duckro has a somewhat stronger argument regarding his ten-point offense level enhancement for the number of guns in volved in the offense. Nothing in the plea agreement refers to the number of guns stolen or possessed by Duckro or his associates. The district court explicitly stated that it relied on the pre-sentence report in determining how many guns Duckro stole or possessed, even though Duckro objected to the use of the determination of the number of guns referenced in the report. See United, States v. Richmond, 169 Fed. Appx. 936 (6th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>). This factual finding based on the presentence
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 sentencing court may not adopt facts from codefendants presentence report that was not disclosed to defendant 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 factual basis had to be established at time of guilty plea not later in presentence investigation