tax returns, in fact, was a foster parent, provided the requisite level of financial aid during the tax year, resided with the child, or even knew the child. Defendant repeated this fraudulent income tax scheme in 1998 for purposes of the 1997 tax year. However, defendant used a different tax return preparer so as to avoid detection. Defendant’s fraudulent scheme cost the I.R.S. approximately $40,935.00. II. Analysis We review a district court’s interpretation of a sentencing guideline de novo, United States v. Adu, 82 F.3d 119, 124 (6th Cir.1996), and its factual determinations underlying an application of a sentencing guideline for clear error, United States v. Jackson-Randolph, 282 F.3d 369, 390 (6th Cir.2002). See United States v. Caseslorente, 220 F.3d 727, 734 (6th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>); Jackson-Randolph, 282 F.3d at 390 (holding
holding that we review for clear error a district courts factual determination as to whether prior cases were consolidated for sentencing under ussg  4a12a2 and that we give the court due deference in its application of the guidelines to that determination holding that we review for clear error a district courts factual determination of a defendants role in an offense for purposes of applying ussg  3b11a holding that we review for clear error the bankruptcy courts factual findings holding that we review for clear error a district courts factual determination of the conduct in which defendant engaged but that we review de novo the district courts determination of whether that conduct constitutes relevant conduct for purposes of ussg  1b13a2 holding that we review a district courts refusal to apply ussg  5c12 for clear error because it is a factual finding