that Perez purchased $75,000 in counterfeit currency and (2) a calculated Guidelines range of 37 to 46 months that was based, in part, on this finding. Second, although the court did not explicitly engage in a Guidelines calculation at sentencing, it did refer to the proposed Guidelines range at the start of sentencing and confirm that Perez agreed with this range. Third, the court’s statement of reasons set forth its calculation of the Guidelines range, which matched the calculation in the presentence report. We therefore identify no error in the court’s Guidelines calculation or its adoption of the presentence report’s findings, and we decline to vacate the sentence on these grounds. See Aldeen, 792 F.3d at 251 (requiring calculation of Guidelines range); Molina, 356 F.3d at 275 (<HOLDING>). B. Section § 3553(a) Factors and Explanation
holding that court may satisfy factual basis requirement by examining presentence report holding that express adoption of factual findings in presentence report is sufficient holding district courts adoption of the presentence report constitutes sufficient findings holding that a district court satisfies its obligation to make factual findings when it explicitly adopts the factual findings set forth in the presentence report holding that the information contained in a presentence report is reliable because it is based upon the presentence officers research of the records contact with relevant agencies and the gathering of information which is required to be included in a presentence report