context: Based on the general nature of Quinta-na's objections, and the course of the proceedings as just described, we are convinced that Quintana's objections were not sufficiently specific to preclude the district court's reliance on the PSR.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 132 F.3d 440, 441
citation_a.parenthetical: holding that a defendant's argument that her PSR overstated the seriousness of her past conduct was not a sufficiently specific objection to the fact of her previous conviction
citation_a.sentence: See United, States v. Flores, 9 F.3d 54, 55-56 (8th Cir.1993) (holding that a defendant’s general objection to his PSR’s recommendation of a sentence increase did not serve as an objection to specific factual allegations in the PSR); see also, United States v. Coleman, 132 F.3d 440, 441 (8th Cir.1998) (holding that a defendant’s argument that her PSR overstated the seriousness of her past conduct was not a sufficiently specific objection to the fact of her previous conviction).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 9 F.3d 54, 55-56
citation_b.parenthetical: holding that a defendant's general objection to his PSR's recommendation of a sentence increase did not serve as an objection to specific factual allegations in the PSR
citation_b.sentence: See United, States v. Flores, 9 F.3d 54, 55-56 (8th Cir.1993) (holding that a defendant’s general objection to his PSR’s recommendation of a sentence increase did not serve as an objection to specific factual allegations in the PSR); see also, United States v. Coleman, 132 F.3d 440, 441 (8th Cir.1998) (holding that a defendant’s argument that her PSR overstated the seriousness of her past conduct was not a sufficiently specific objection to the fact of her previous conviction).