Citing references

Stubblefield, 682 F.3d 502, 510 (6th Cir.2012). We determine reasonableness under the deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. Id.

Stubblefield, 682 F.3d 502, 505 (6th Cir.2012); United States v. Smith, 549 F.3d 355, 359 (6th Cir.2008).

Stubblefield, 682 F.3d 502, 510 (6th Cir.2012). Whether a person is a victim under the guidelines is a legal conclusion that we review de novo. Id.

Stubblefield, 682 F.3d 502, 510 (6th Cir. 2012); cf. Rosales-Mireles v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1897 , 1907–08 (2018).

Stubblefield, 682 F.3d 502, 510 (6th Cir.2012) (citing Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 , 128 S.Ct. 586 , 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); United States v. Battaglia, 624 F.3d 348, 350 (6th Cir.2010)).

Stubblefield, 682 F.3d 502, 510 (6th Cir.2012). “In reviewing the district court’s calculation of the Guidelines, we ... review the district court’s factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo.” United States v.

Stubblefield, 682 F.3d 502, 510 (6th Cir.2012). The district court’s “legal interpretation of the Guidelines [is] reviewed de novo, but its factual findings are reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard.” Id.

Stubblefield, 682 F.3d 502, 510 (6th Cir.2012) (citing Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 , 128 S.Ct. 586 , 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); United States v. Battaglia, 624 F.3d 348, 350 (6th Cir.2010)).

Stubblefield, 682 F.3d 502, 510 (6th Cir.2012).

Stubble field, 682 F.3d 502, 505 (6th Cir.2012). Where a district court denies a motion to suppress, we examine the evidence in the light most favorable to the government. Id.

Stubblefield, 682 F.3d 502, 510 (6th Cir. 2012); United States v. Paulsen, 655 F.3d 492, 512 (6th Cir. 2011). We review challenges to the procedural reasonableness of a defendant’s sentence under a “deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.”

Stubblefield, 682 F.3d 502, 510 (6th Cir. 2012) (“If the district court misinterprets the Guidelines or miscalculates the Guidelines range, then the resulting sentence is procedurally unreasonable.”).

Stubblefield, 682 F.3d 502, 510 (6th Cir. 2012).

Stubblefield, 682 F.3d 502, 510 (6th Cir. 2012).

Stubblefield, 682 F.3d 502, 505 (6th Cir.2012), leads to the conclusion that Deputy Glick did not have “clear and uncontroverted evidence” that the Duvals were in full compliance with the MMMA when he applied for and executed the search warrant.

Stubblefield, 682 F.3d 502, 510 (6th Cir.2012) (internal quotation marks omitted). The term “vie- *647 tim” is defined as “any person who sustained any part of the actual loss determined under subsection (b)(1)....” U.S.

Stubblefield, 682 F.3d 502, 510 (6th Cir. 2012)). And “[w]hether a prior conviction counts as a predicate offense under the Guidelines is a question of law subject to de novo review.” United States v.

Stubblefield , 682 F.3d 502 , 510 (6th Cir. 2012). The factual findings required to determine whether Sweeney fell within USSG § 2G2.1(b)(5), appropriately interpreted, are reviewed for clear error. United States v.

Stubblefield, 682 F.3d 502, 510 (6th Cir. 2012). a. Section 2B3.1(b)(2)(E) imposes a three-level enhancement if a “dangerous weapon was brandished or possessed” during a covered robbery.

Stubblefield, 682 F.3d 502, 510 (6th Cir.2012) (quoting United States v. Dupree, 323 F.3d 480, 491 (6th Cir.2003)). 7 .

Stubblefield, 682 F.3d 502 , 510 *531 (6th Cir.2012). Likewise, the “mixed law- and-fact conclusion that the facts found by the district court constituted an obstruction of justice” is reviewed de novo. United States v.

Stubblefield, 682 F.3d 502, 510 (6th Cir. 2012). --15- 15 - No. 12-5541 United States v. Mann In the end, the most troubling aspect of the majority’s decision is the vague standard it employs to review ACCA enhancements.

Stubblefield, 682 F.3d 502, 510 (6th Cir. 2012) (quoting United States v. Ellisor, 522 F.3d 1255, 1275 (11th Cir. 2008)) (alteration in original).

Stubblefield, 682 F.3d 502, 510 (6th Cir.2012). Harris identifies two flaws in the district court’s number-of-vietims calculation.

Stubblefield, 682 F.3d 502, 510 (6th Cir.2012) (quoting United States v. Dupree, 323 F.3d 480, 491 (6th Cir.2003)). We review a district court’s drug-quantity determination as a factual finding under the clearly erroneous standard. United States v.