of 46 or 47. I will take the lower of those numbers. That verifies the 46. The defendant has not disputed the math, the multiplication at least. That comes up to the $161,590.... And that is the amount for which the defendant ... will be held responsible. J.A. at 234-35. Bearden has not made any specific arguments calling into question this amount, and thus the basis of his claim of excessiveness is not clear. Without more, we cannot conclude that the district court abused its discretion in setting this amount. Second, Bearden apparently takes issue with the § 3664(e) preponderance of the evidence standard itself. Bearden now argues that the district court’s restitution order conflicts with Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490, 120 S.Ct. 2348 09 S.Ct. 2237, 104 L.Ed.2d 923 (1989) (<HOLDING>). 2 . 18 U.S.C. § 3664(j)(l) states in part
holding that defendants have a right to be present at voir dire holding that voir dire of jury may be delegated to magistrate judge where defendant consents to the delegation because the district court retains the ultimate decision on empaneling the jury holding that only a district judge in the charging district and not a magistrate judge in that district may review the release order of a magistrate judge in the arresting district holding that district courts delegation of voir dire to magistrate judge is inconsistent with 28 usc  636b3 where defendant does not consent holding that defense counsel may decide whether to consent to voir dire proceedings before a federal magistrate