record is ambiguous as to the quantity of crack found by the district court and that any such ambiguity should be resolved in his favor. In other words, VanBuren believes that it is not clear from the record whether the court intended to adopt the quantity used in the PSR or the amount alleged in the indictment and found by the jury. The district court very clearly adopted the drug quantity set forth in the PSR. After considering VanBuren’s objections, the district court sentenced him in a manner consistent with the PSR’s recommendations. Moreover, in the Statement of Reasons accompanying the judgment entered by the district court, the court expressly “adopt[ed] the factual findings ... in the presentence report.” J.A. 492. See United States v. Walker, 29 F.3d 908, 912 (4th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). The court’s statement that it intended to
holding that appellate courts may not on appeal from the dismissal of a rule 32 petition consider claims not raise in the rule 32 petition holding that an appellant cannot raise an issue on appeal from the denial of a rule 32 petition which was not raised in the rule 32 petition holding rule 32 requirements satisfied where the district court sentenced the defendant consistently with the psrs recommendations and indicated it was adopting the psrs findings on its statement of reasons form accompanying the judgment holding it an abuse of discretion for the district court to deny equitable relief by relying on its own findings that were inconsistent with the jurys findings holding that appellate courts may not on appeal from the dismissal of a rule 32 petition consider claims not raised in the rule 32 petition