of the evidence. See United States v. Faust, 456 F.3d 1342, 1348 (11th Cir.2006). Adequate evidence in the record supports the loss amount attributed to Menendez. The district court’s consideration of acquitted conduct was not error. Menendez also challenges the district court’s application of a two-level enhancement for obstruction of justice under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1. The district court applied the enhancement after concluding that Menendez misrepresented the extent of his assets to the magistrate judge in order to obtain appointed counsel. Men-endez concedes that the district court properly applied the enhancement under our case law but argues that those decisions were wrongly decided and are likely to be overruled. See, e.g., United States v. Ruff, 79 F.3d 123, 125 (11th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). Under the prior panel precedent rule, we are
holding that district courts factual findings for purposes of obstruction enhancement are reviewed for clear error holding that before a court imposes an enhancement for obstruction of justice the court must review the evidence and make independent findings necessary to establish a willful impediment to or obstruction of justice  holding that enhancement for obstruction of justice which uses similar mandatory language must be applied where factual predicates are satisfied 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 obstruction of justice enhancement was properly applied where the defendant provided materially false information to a magistrate judge