been significantly lower in spring 1997, Craig's earnings would not have required restatement, and the stock value would not have plummeted. 13 . The government cites only a withdrawn version of Romero-Rendon, 198 F.3d at 748, withdrawn by 220 F.3d 1159. The government maintains that Romero-Rendon states that preponderance of the evidence is an adequate standard where the defendant did not challenge the accuracy of the sentencing report. The superceding version of our decision in that case, however, did not so hold. 14 . Berger's reliance on Staten and Zolp is misplaced. Neither Staten nor Zolp focused on the standard of proof, and therefore neither calls into question our holdings in Riley, Armstead, or Garro. See United States v. Johnson, 256 F.3d 895, 915 (9th Cir.2001) (en banc) (<HOLDING>). Rather, Staten considered the viability of
holding that where a statement is merely a prelude to another legal issue that commands the panels full attention it is not binding on later panels holding that a prior panel decision is binding on subsequent panels holding that decisions by prior panels are binding recognizing that a prior panels holding is binding on all subsequent panels holding that an earlier precedential decision is binding precedent on later panels