the basis of the following...Cruz~Gramajo, 570 F.3d at 1172 (“Section 1B1.3 does not create a scope of relevant conduct that has independent significance. Rather, it merely defines the scope of conduct considered in determining the base offense level, specific offense characteristics, cross references, and adjustments involved.”). For losses resulting from a fraudulent conspiracy as extensive and long-lasting as the present Ponzi scheme—and for which Sluder and Saturday were both convicted—all that § 1B1.3 requires is that, in the context of calculating the amount of loss under § 2B1.1, the district court make factual determinations establishing the scope of each defendant’s joint undertaking and the amount of losses reasonably foreseeable to each defendant. See Riley, 335 F.3d at 928 (<HOLDING>). To require anything greater would make
holding that the defendants presence at two meetings for purchases of large amounts of cocaine was sufficient to establish his participation in the conspiracy 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 holding that there was a sufficient basis for joinder of seven defendants in a single trial where all the defendants were charged with participation in a single overarching drug conspiracy holding that evidence tending to show knowing participation in the conspiracy is sufficient to sustain conspiracy conviction holding that the sentencing court erred in failing to make a factual determination as to the amount of drugs attributable to the defendant after his participation in the charged conspiracy