academic exercise of resolving complicated factual questions in order to delineate an exact Guidelines range if the court has already settled on a reasonable sentence in light of the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Although the Second Circuit has determined that, in such cases, a precise -92 (1st Cir.1999) (applying de novo review to "the trial court’s interpretation of the guidelines or its final determination to see whether the facts here supported a finding that[the defendant] made a threat of death” but applying clear error review as to any "factual disputes”). Both the Fifth and Sixth Circuits, in contrast, have held that the applicability of the threat-of-death enhancement is a legal determination. See United States v. Soto-Martinez, 317 F.3d 477, 478-79 (5th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Winbush, 296 F.3d 442, 443
holding question of law applied to undisputed facts reviewed de novo holding that antitrust standing is question of law reviewed de novo holding that waiver should be reviewed de novo when decided without trial on undisputed facts holding that when the facts of a robbery are undisputed the imposition of the enhancement is a question of the application of the guidelines to be reviewed de novo recognizing that this court reviews de novo the trial courts interpretation and application of a statute to undisputed facts