Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): 408 F.3d at 684. Ab though United States v. Booker made the Guidelines effectively advisory, the Tenth Circuit in United States v. Magallanez reaffirmed that “district courts are. still required to consider Guideline ranges, which are determined through application of the preponderance standard,. just as they were before.” 408 F.3d at 685 (citation omitted). The Tenth Circuit, while “recognizing ‘strong arguments that relevant conduct causing a dramatic increase in sentence ought to be subject to a higher standard of proof,’” has “long held that sentencing facts in the ‘ordinary ease’ need only be; proven by a preponderance.” United States v. Olsen, 519 F.3d 1096, 1105 (10th Cir.2008) (quoting United States v. Washington, 11 F.3d 1510, 15 , 705-06 (10th Cir.2014) (unpublished) (<HOLDING>). As the Court has noted: The Court explained 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that criminal conduct of which defendant is acquitted may be used as sentencing factor if proved by preponderance of the evidence (B) holding that in order to satisfy due process findings made at sentencing need only be based upon a preponderance of the evidence (C) holding that prior convictions relevant only to the sentencing of an offender found guilty of the charged crime do not need to be charged in an indictment or proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt (D) holding that after alleyne v united states it is wellestablished that sentencing factors need not be charged in an indictment and need only be proved to the sentencing judge by a preponderance of the evidence (E) holding that the fact of a prior conviction for sentencing purposes need not be proved to a jury or admitted by defendant to satisfy the sixth amendment
Output (English): holding that the fact of a prior conviction for sentencing purposes need not be proved to a jury or admitted by defendant to satisfy the sixth amendment