Opinion ID: 77601
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Whether the district court erred in admitting the summary chart at trial.

Text: 46 II. Whether the district court erred during sentencing when it accepted the calculated loss figure of more than $1 million. 47 III. Whether the district court erred in imposing a two-level increase based on its finding that the Notice of Claim was sufficient under USSG § 2B1.1(b)(7)(C) (2002). 48 In examining a court's evidentiary rulings at trial, including the admission of a summary chart pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 1006, we review for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Massey, 89 F.3d 1433, 1441 (11th Cir.1996) ( citing United States v. Norton, 867 F.2d 1354, 1362 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 491 U.S. 907, 109 S.Ct. 3192, 105 L.Ed.2d 701 (1989)). 49 We review the sufficiency of the evidence de novo, to determine whether a reasonable jury could have concluded that the evidence established the loss amount beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Diaz, 248 F.3d 1065, 1084 (11th Cir. 2001). The evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the government and all reasonable inferences and credibility choices are made in the government's favor. Id. See also United States v. Lyons, 53 F.3d 1198, 1200 (11th Cir.1995); United States v. Johnson, 713 F.2d 654, 661(11th Cir.1983). 50 The district court's interpretation of the Sentencing Guidelines is a question of law which this Court reviews de novo.  United States v. Miranda, 348 F.3d 1322, 1330 (11th Cir.2003) ( citing United States v. Gonzalez, 2 F.3d 369, 371 (11th Cir. 1993)).