factual finding of reasonable foreseeability, an error that would require a remand. See Gutierrez-Hernandez, 94 F.3d at 585. The district court, however, adequately made such a finding: the judge explicitly adopted the factual findings of the presen-tence report and told Laney that "although I do recognize that you yourself were not ... present during the actual events ... you’re responsible under the law for the conduct of the coconspirators and indeed after the ... conduct had taken place, you tend[ed] to participate in overt acts that relate to that.” See United States v. Whitecotton, 142 F.3d 1194, 1198 (9th Cir.1998) (stating that district court may make findings by specifically adopting findings of presentence report); United States v. Willis, 899 F.2d 873, 875 (9th Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>). 9 .The court did not abuse its discretion by
holding that a court of appeals may presume reasonable a district courts proper application of the sentencing guidelines holding that even without booker constitutional error in the district courts application of the guidelines there could be nonconstitutional error where the court applied the guidelines in a mandatory fashion holding that the mere mandatory application of the guidelines  the district courts belief that it was required to impose a guidelines sentence  constitutes error holding that district court did not violate ex post facto clause in sentencing defendant above guidelines maximum where district court assumed guidelines to be advisory prebooker holding that district court need not use the exact reasonable foreseeability language used in guidelines