Dist. Ct. did not err in sentencing defendant to above-guideline, 400-month term of incarceration on unlawful possession of firearm charge, even though defendant claimed that Dist. Ct. failed to explicitly rule on his objections to certain facts contained in presentence investigation report. Dist. Ct. sufficiently complied with Fed. R. Crim P. 32(i)(3)(B) where it categorically adopted probation officer’s findings prior to considering defendant’s oral statements regarding his version of facts. Moreover, Dist. Ct.’s indication that it would not resolve factual dispute in presentence investigation report until after defendant had given his version of facts did not require different result where Dist. Ct. confirmed her acceptance of probation officer’s version of facts after listening to defendant’s evidence. Also, defendant did not contest substantive reasonableness of instant sentence.