Opinion ID: 173000
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: standard of review

Text: Ms. McClure now appeals her 188-month sentence based on the same issues and arguments presented in her objections to the presentence report and at the sentencing hearing. She does not otherwise appeal the reasonableness of her sentence. We begin with a discussion of our standard of review and the applicable legal principles. 1 “Even after Booker, when reviewing a district court’s application of the Sentencing Guidelines, we review legal questions de novo and ... any factual findings for clear error, giving due deference to the district court’s application of the guidelines to the facts.” United States v. Wolfe, 435 F.3d 1289, 1295 (10 th Cir. 2006) (quotation marks and citations omitted). “Clear error exists 1 Rather than providing the standard of review for the first two issues on appeal, counsel for Ms. McClure merely cites to our jurisdictional statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3742, under the heading “Standard of Review” at the beginning of her brief. We kindly remind counsel the appellant’s brief should contain “for each issue, a concise statement of the applicable standard of review,” together with citations to the authorities on which the appellant relies. Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(9)(A) and (B). -9- if a factual finding is wholly without factual support in the record, or after reviewing the evidence, we are definitively and firmly convinced that a mistake has been made.” United States v. Hooks, 551 F.3d 1205, 1217 (10 th Cir. 2009) (quotation marks and citation omitted). In pursuing sentence enhancements, “[t]he government bears the burden of proving sentencing enhancements by a preponderance of the evidence,” United States v. Orr, 567 F.3d 610, 614 (10 th Cir. 2009), and “showing facts necessary to justify the addition of criminal history points,” United States v. Randall, 472 F.3d 763, 766 n.1 (10 th Cir. 2006). On the other hand, the defendant bears the burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence she is eligible for safety valve relief. See United States v. Payton, 405 F.3d 1168, 1170 (10 th Cir. 2005).