look behind a state conviction in federal sentencing .... is limited to instances where the judgment of conviction and the statute are ambiguous.”). In this case, even if we were to assume that the statute and judgment of conviction are ambiguous, Howard would still be unable to show that her previous conviction was not a violent crime. The presentence investigative report (“PSI”) provides that Howard was at an elementary school, pulled out a firearm, and began firing several rounds at an unknown male who had stolen her bicycle. (PSI ¶ 33.) She chased the unknown male across the physical education field while discharging the firearm. Id. Because Howard failed to object to the facts set forth in the PSI, she admitted them. United States v. Bennett, 472 F.3d 825, 833-34 (11th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>); see also United States v. Glaseo, 223
holding that because the defendant did not object to the factual recitations in the psi he effectively admitted the facts in the psi holding that where defendant failed to object to facts in psi relating to prior conviction the failure to object constituted an admission holding that the failure to object to an instruction constitutes a waiver of error holding that the defendant waived the issue on appeal when he failed to contemporaneously object to the admission of such evidence at trial holding that the defendant conceded the accuracy of his prior convictions in his psi report by failing to object to the report