Given the task definition and input, reply with output. In this task, you will be shown a prompt from a judicial decision and multiple holding statements derived from citations following text in a legal decision. Holdings represent the governing legal rule when the law is applied to a particular set of facts. There are five answer choices for each citing text. The correct answer is the holding statement that corresponds to the citing text. The four incorrect answers are other holding statements. You should find the correct option. There is a <HOLDING> token in the position of the citing text prompt where the holding statement was extracted.

We review for clear error the district court's factual findings in the sentencing phase, but they must be supported by a preponderance of the evidence. U.S. v. Fox, 189 F.3d 1115, 1118 (9th Cir.1999). We affirm. Nakamura contends the district court erred in determining by a preponderance of the evidence that the conspiracy distributed in excess of 5 grams of actual methamphetamine when only 3.3 grams were recovered and tested for purity. It is undisputed that Nakamura delivered 12.5 grams of unrecovered methamphetamine. Absent evidence to the contrary, it was not clear error for the district court to determine the purity of the unre-covered methamphetamine by extrapolating from the purity of the 3.3 grams actually recovered. See U.S. v. Lopes-Montes, 165 F.3d 730, 731-32 (9th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). Nakamura's contention that he had no
Holding statements: (A) holding that when a stipulation to a crucial fact is entered into the record in open court in the presence of the defendant and is agreed to by defendants acknowledged counsel the trial court may reasonably assume that the defendant is aware of the content of the stipulation and agreed to it through his or her attorney (B) holding that at resentencing the district court was entitled to assume that the waiver was still in effect and was not required to again advise defendant of his right to counsel where defendant had waived counsel at the plea stage (C) holding that absent evidence to the contrary the district court was entitled to assume that the remaining 36 kilograms lopes montes agreed to deliver was a mixture with a similar purity level as the 32 kilogram mixture actually recovered (D) holding that the district court erred when it used rule 36 to amend the defendants sentence to include an order of forfeiture that had been agreed to in the plea agreement but which the court failed to make a part of its judgment at sentencing (E) holding that there was no evidence that parties actually agreed to modify stock purchase agreement and thus contract was effective as originally written
(C)