of bias or irregularity. United States v. Stafford, 136 F.3d 1109, 1112-13 (7th Cir.1998.) 2. In this case, the conduct complained of was not mentioned by defense counsel, but rather the district court, and as a result this Court has very little information on what the improper influence could have been. The evidence of any bias comes in the form of this brief statement by the district judge outside of the presence of the jury and spectators: Be seated. Counsel, there have been some regular attendees at this trial who I take it are family members, acquaintances of one or both of the defendants. It would appear that perhaps jurors believe too much attention is being paid to th 99 (4th Cir.2009) (citing United States v. Watts, 519 U.S. 148, 157, 117 S.Ct. 633, 136 L.Ed.2d 554 (1997)) (<HOLDING>) respectively, we decline to address these
holding that best interest of child need only be proven by a preponderance of the evidence holding that uncharged conduct may be considered at sentencing when that conduct is proven by a preponderance of the evidence holding that a district court may find acquitted conduct by a preponderance of the evidence holding that criminal conduct of which defendant is acquitted may be used as sentencing factor if proved by preponderance of the evidence holding that a sentencing court may consider acquitted conduct or uncharged criminal conduct