to counsels’ arguments regarding an enhancement for obstruction of justice, the district judge “state[d] simply that ‘[t]he court adopts the factual findings and guideline applications in the presentence report.’ ” Tackett, 113 F.3d at 614 (second alteration in original). This court concluded that “[t]his is a far cry from the making of a finding for each matter controverted, "as the plain language of Rule 32 requires,” and remanded for resentencing. Id.; see also United States v. Monus, 128 F.3d 376, 396 (6th Cir.1997) (“The law in this circuit clearly prohibits a court faced with a dispute over sentencing factors from adopting the factual findings of the pre-sentence report without making factual determinations of its own.”); United States v. Mandell, 905 F.2d 970, 974 (6th Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>). We therefore conclude that Corrado and Tocco
holding that a district court satisfies its obligation to make factual findings when it explicitly adopts the factual findings set forth in the presentence report holding that a district courts sentence that simply adopted the findings of the presentence report as to controverted factual matters violated rule 32 holding that express adoption of factual findings in presentence report is sufficient holding district courts adoption of the presentence report constitutes sufficient findings holding that if the government fails to object to the presentence report the district courts reliance on the report is reviewed for plain error