that express findings are required, but concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a $300,000 fine “[bjecause the court considered the necessary factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3572(a), and because Hyppolite did not demonstrate his inability to pay” the fine); United States v. Francisco, 35 F.3d 116, 121-22 (4th Cir.1994) (stating that specific factual findings are required to comply with 18 U.S.C. § 3572(a), but concluding that because the defendant failed to object to the fine at sentencing, the district court made specific factual findings regarding the defendant’s financial condition, and the PSR supported the imposition of the $2,000 fine, the district had properly complied with § 3572(a)); United States v. Miller, 995 F.2d 865, 869 (8th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>). In this case, the record establishes, even
holding that only relevant factors must be considered holding that findings of fact made in administrative proceedings are considered to be prima facie correct and that where a district court has heard and considered additional evidence  we review its findings of fact for clear error holding that the district court must make findings on the record as to the basis for its conclusion about the amount of actual loss holding that the district court made sufficient factual findings and adequately determined the scope of defendants participation in a conspiracy under  1b13 even though the district court did not expressly determine the scope of the defendants participation recognizing that specific findings must be made showing that the district court considered the seven factors and holding that district courts conclusion that defendants had reaped large profits while participating in conspiracy was sufficient