facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586. “When reviewing the district court’s calculation of the sentencing guidelines advisory sentencing range, ‘[w]e review the district court’s factual findings for clear error and its construction and application of the Guidelines de novo.’ ” United States v. Pappas, 715 F.3d 225, 228 (8th Cir.2013) (alteration in original) (quoting United States v. Raplinger, 555 F.3d 687, 693 (8th Cir.2009)). “Under an advisory Guidelines regime, sentencing judges are only required to find sentence-enhancing facts by a preponderance of the evidence.” United States v. Garcia-Gonon, 433 F.3d 587, 593 (8th Cir.2006). But see Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. —, —, 133 S.Ct. 2151, 2155, 186 L.Ed.2d 314 (2013) (<HOLDING>). The Guidelines advise the district court to
holding that other than fact of prior conviction any fact that increases penalty for crime beyond prescribed statutory minimum must be submitted to jury and proved beyond reasonable doubt holding any fact that increases the mandatory minimum is an element that must be submitted to the jury holding that if the existence of any fact increases the maximum punishment that may be imposed on a defendant that fact constitutes an element that must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt holding that any fact that increases mandatory minimum is element that must be proved beyond reasonable doubt holding any fact other than prior conviction that increases statutory mandatory minimum is element of offense that must be submitted to jury and found beyond reasonable doubt