defendant does not violate the Sixth Amendment right to jury trial.” United States v. Treadwell, 593 F.3d 990, 1017 (9th Cir. 2010) (citations omitted). Rush’s sentence of 156 months is not substantively unreasonable because it is at the low end of the range calculated using the sentencing guidelines and does not exceed the statutory maximum for either offense of conviction. See United States v. Laurienti, 731 F.3d 967, 976 (9th Cir. 2013); Treadwell, 593 F.3d at 1015. The district court, therefore, did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Rush to 156 . months’ imprisonment. 6. The district court did not err by applying a 2-level enhancement based on Rush’s abuse of a position of trust pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.3. See United States v. Adebimpe, 819 F.3d 1212, 1219-20 (9th Cir. 2016) (<HOLDING>). 7. Rush challenges the amount of restitution
holding that the defendants substantial rights were not affected by a sentencing guidelines enhancement even in the absence of a specific finding by the district court because the evidence amply supported the enhancement holding that the district court lacked authority to revisit the application of the career offender enhancement in a  3582 motion because that enhancement was not affected by a retroactive amendment holding that unloaded firearms qualify for this enhancement holding that this abuseofapositionoftrust enhancement could apply to a medicare equipment supplier holding that sentence enhancement for crimes committed against law enforcement officers may be applied when information charges qualifying offense information does not need to recite enhancement statute