departure. Not only was there notice, but the Eighth Circuit has recently concluded that a similar statement in a PSR constituted notice that was sufficient under Rule 32(h). In Hawk Wing, 433 F.3d at 626, “the PSR stated, under the heading ‘Aggravating or Mitigating Circumstances,’ that ‘the defendant has an extensive criminal history for which no criminal history points were as signed.’ ” The court held that, even though the PSR did not affirmatively recommend an upward departure, the PSR satisfied Rule 32(h) because “the PSR included a specific ground that could form the basis for an upward departure — a criminal history for which no criminal history points were assigned .... ” Hawk Wing, 433 F.3d at 627; see also United States v. Anders, 899 F.2d 570, 573, 576-77 (6th Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>). The Eighth Circuit’s reasoning is sound
holding that uncharged conduct described in psr and which was discussed by the court at sentencing was sufficient to support an upward departure under  5k221 holding that notice must state the specific grounds for the departure holding that district court may find facts to support both factors by adopting psr holding that the district court violated fedrcrimp 32 by departing upward in sentence without notice and the psr identified no grounds for departure holding that there was sufficient notice when the psr listed factors for but did not recommend departure for one codefendant