Eventually, they left. We conclude the district court's finding of intimidation was not clearly erroneous. The district court denied defendant a reduction for acceptance of responsibility, despite his guilty plea, based on his post-plea attempts to obstruct justice. Id. Testimony at sentencing showed more than five people performed various functions at defendant's direction in connection with his extensive crack cocaine operation, including selling drugs, providing locations for drug sales, providing locations for drug storage, transporting defendant for drug procurement and sale, and performing various ancillary services such as retrieving stashed drugs, wiring funds, and taking customers to defendant. It is sufficient that defendant recruited accomplices to facilitate his drug operation and exercised significant control over their conduct in this regard.
Ample evidence exists to support the findings of the district court.
Defendant contends, for various reasons, that evidence at sentencing established his responsibility for no more than 499 grams, which would translate to a BOL of 34. We review the district court's quantity determinations for clear error, to ensure they are based on a preponderance of the evidence. Defendant argued this price was too low and inflated the resultant estimates. At sentencing, the government explained and supplied factual substantiation for the price. The dates and amounts of these sales were all consistent with information in the PSI, which had also specified the price for all but one of the sales.