in his father’s name. Further, Huggins’s father testified that he authorized his son to put the Denali in his name, but that it was Huggins’s car, that he did not make payments on it, and that he did not regularly drive it. After hearing this evidence, the jury could reasonably conclude that Huggins knew the transactions were designed to conceal the nature of the proceeds used to purchase the vehicles. C. Sentencing Issues 1. Sentencing Enhancement Next, Huggins contends that the District Court abused its discretion during sentencing by increasing his offense level by two levels for his leadership role in the offense, arguing that there was no evidence to support a finding that he was a leader of five or more people. See United States v. Tomko, 562 F.3d 558, 567 (3d Cir.2009) (en banc) (<HOLDING>). This argument is without merit because the
recognizing that we review the sentence imposed by a district court under the abuse of discretion standard recognizing abuse of discretion rather than de novo standard of review holding that appellate courts should review district court determinations of the adequacy of damage awards under an abuse of discretion standard holding that the appropriate standard of review is abuse of discretion holding that the standard of review under rule 60 is abuse of discretion