has not demonstrated prejudice from any erroneous juror dismissal. See United States v. Alexander, 48 F.3d 1477, 1485 (9th Cir.1995) (requiring that where a ju ror is erroneously dismissed, the party arguing for reversal prove prejudice). Sine does not suggest any such prejudice, and we cannot perceive any. V. The district court treated the Sentencing Guidelines as advisory, as required by United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). There was, therefore, no Sixth Amendment violation in relying on sentencing facts not found by the jury. Id. at 245, 125 S.Ct. 738. Nor was there a Sixth Amendment violation in determining the amount lost by the victims for purposes of the restitution order. See United States v. Bussell, 414 F.3d 1048, 1060 (9th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). VI. Sine argues that he received ineffective
holding that there is no sixth amendment right to jury sentencing holding that no plain error occurred where any hypothetical minor error in calculating total loss would not have affected the ultimate amount of restitution because the court imposed only 30000 of restitution after calculating a total loss of 500000 holding that the sixth amendment does not require factfinding by a jury for purposes of calculating the amount of restitution holding that the fact of a prior conviction for sentencing purposes need not be proved to a jury or admitted by defendant to satisfy the sixth amendment holding that there was no sixth amendment violation where judicial factfinding of a drug quantity greater than the amount alleged in the indictment did not go beyond the facts admitted by the defendant