valve any time a § 2D 1.1 (b)(1) enhancement has been imposed[J” the Ninth Circuit subsequently limited Smith’s reach to the particular conduct involved in that case. United States v. Nelson, 222 F.3d 545, 550 (9th Cir. 2000). According to the court, Smith did not address the "separate and distinct burdens of proof for § 2D1.1(b)(1) and § 5C1.2.” Id. The court noted that, although conduct that will support a finding under §§ 2D1.1(b)(1) and 5C1.2 may be the same, "the burden and quantum of proof ... [under these sections] remain different." Id. at 551. The court then held that, "even where a defendant has already received a § 2D1.1(b)(1) enhancement, the defendant need only show his eligibility for [§ 5C1.2 ‘safety valve'] relief by a preponderance of the evidence.” Id. at 551-52 (<HOLDING>). 5 . Moreover, we know of no binding published
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 at trial a criminal defendant has the burden to prove his insanity by a preponderance of the evidence holding that the  2d11b1 enhancement was proper where a firearm and drugrelated items were found in the defendants residence where he had also engaged in conspiratorial conversations holding that the defendant on remand may show his eligibility for the safety valve reduction by a preponderance of the evidence even where a  2d11b1 enhancement applied holding that the  2d11b1 enhancement is not limited to the charged conspiracy