counsel mentioned in Revels” as supporting the application of that case. My reading of Revels does not reveal silence by defendant or counsel. To the contrary, in its opinion, the Fourth Circuit noted that “Revels testified that he had read the PSR [pre-sentencing report] and discussed it with his lawyer.” Id. at 449. Thereafter, the judge asked defendant directly if he had objections to anything contained in or left out of the report, and he responded, “No, sir.” Id. at 450. Even so, the court in Revels found Sixth Amendment error, but ultimately deemed it harmless. The Fourth Circuit recently reaffirmed the importance of assessing admissions on the Revels spectrum for Booker (and thus Blakely) purposes. United States v. Britt, 216 F. App’x 317, 321 (4th Cir. 2007) (unpublished) (<HOLDING>). On the Revels spectrum, this case appears
holding that when defendants only timely filed objections to expert report were that two statements were speculative defendant waived all other objections holding that trial counsel was not ineffective when he failed to introduce defendants prior consistent statement statement was not admissible because it was made after defendant had been arrested clearly not a time when the effect of the statement could not have been foreseen holding that statement within expert report is not a judicial admission but is instead an admission by party holding that the statement of defense counsel that all objections to a presentencing report had been resolved was not an admission for booker purposes because it requires the court to draw inferences about facts admitted by the defendant holding that this court reviews a booker issue de novo where the defendant objected in the district court to sentence enhancements based on facts not found by a jury nor admitted by the defendant