sentencing, inaccurately identified the date of conviction for Aggravated Trafficking as May 14, 1983, when that was the date of his guilty plea and the judgment was not entered until July 18, 1983. The information otherwise correctly identified the court, the case number, and the conviction. In examining the adequacy of the notice under § 851, “the proper inquiry is whether the government’s information provided the defendant ‘reasonable notice of [its] intent to rely on a particular conviction and a meaningful opportunity to be heard.’ ” United States v. King, 127 F.3d 483, 488-89 (6th Cir.1997) (citation omitted). Defendant has not shown that the misidentification of the date of conviction deprived the defendant of reasonable notice or a meaningful opportunity to be heard. Id. at 489 (<HOLDING>). Defendant cannot demonstrate plain error with
holding that when counsel was present when a trial date was announced and received written notice of the date even though the client did not receive notice the attorneys knowledge was imputed to the client holding defendant had adequate notice when information listed offense and court despite error in date holding that an unscheduled creditor had constitutionally adequate notice of the bankruptcy proceedings because it had sufficient information to evaluate whether to participate in the case and protect its interests holding that the district court abused its discretion when it decided that defense counsels determination of the wrong date by which defendant had to file a notice of appeal constituted excusable neglect holding that where claimant had actual notice of corporate dissolution limitation period began on date of dissolution despite failure to provide written notice