Schrader argues for the first time on appeal the potential of physical harm from the sexual-assault allegations. He offers no reasoning or supporting facts. Even if Schrader preserved this argument, alleging possible physical harm, without more, is too speculative to justify exclusion under Rule 32(d)(3)(C). See United States v. Bartlett, 416 Fed.Appx. 508, 510 (6th Cir. 2011) (finding no violation of Rule 32 where the district court refused to strike sexual-abuse allegations and instead indicated it did not resolve their truth). The district court followed Rule 32 in ruling on the disputed PSR paragraphs. Compliance with Rule 32 sufficiently alleviates any concern that others will rely on the unproven allegations. See United States v. Hopkins, 824 F.3d 726, 735 (8th Cir. 2016) (<HOLDING>). Because Rule 32 does not compel exclusion of
holding that the state as well as the defendant has a right to rely on compliance with rule 16 holding that a district court may rely on undisputed conclusory statements in the psr even in the absence of supporting evidence holding that plainerror review applies when a defendant fails to make a specific rule 32i3b objection based on a district courts failure to resolve a factual dispute 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 concerns that prison officials will rely on unfounded detrimental psr information are met by a district courts compliance with rule 32i3b 