Fed.R.Crim.P. 32(i)(l)(A). A trial judge need not expressly ask the defendant if he and his counsel have read and discussed the report. United States v. Osborne, 291 F.3d 908, 910 (6th Cir.2002). “[T]he court need only somehow determine that defendant and counsel have had an opportunity to read and discuss the [pre-sentence report].” Id. (quoting United States v. Stevens, 851 F.2d 140, 143 (6th Cir.1988) (second alteration in original) (emphasis omitted)). The district court did not commit plain error by failing to ask Collier if he read and discussed the PSR with his counsel. The record supports the inference that Collier read and discussed the PSR with his attorney and that his substantial rights were not affected. See United States v. Tarpley, 295 Fed.Appx. 11, 17 (6th Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>). Collier had several objections to the initial
holding that even if a defendant is able to show that there was a plain error that affected his substantial rights a court of appeals is not required to reverse a conviction unless it finds that the error seriously affected the fairness integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings holding that defendant was not resident of his mothers household even though his drivers license listed his mothers address and he received mail there because he expressed a belief that his residence was in a different location than his mothers home he rented and occupied his own residence and he testified that he was only living with his mother after expiration of his lease until he could find another place to live holding that defendants prior arrests were insufficient to establish that defendant was aware of his right to appointed counsel even though he told dea officers that he understood his rights holding that plaintiff could not show that he was disabled because he conceded that he could do his job despite his impairment holding that even though defendant stated he did not read and discuss psr with his counsel he could not show any error that affected his substantial rights