of a two-month trial. To say that these brief comments resulted in the convictions would ignore the far more plausible conclusion that the overwhelming evidence of guilt led to the jury verdict. In that context, we find the error to be harmless. G. Sentencing The defendants and the government each appeal one issue related to sentencing. The first, whether “volume of commerce” includes all sales or some subset of all sales affected by the conspiracy, is a question of law, which we review de novo. See United States v. McClanahan, 136 F.3d 1146, 1149 (7th Cir.1998). However, once we determine the correct legal principle, we review deferentially the lower court’s findings of fact regarding the volume of commerce affected. See United States v. Hammick, 36 F.3d 594, 597-98 (7th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). The second issue is whether the district
holding that findings of fact are reviewed for clear error holding that factual conclusions of sentencing court which must be supported by a preponderance of the evidence are reviewed for clear error holding that findings of fact from a bench trial are reviewed for clear error holding that factual findings in sentencing context are reviewed for clear error holding that district courts factual findings for purposes of obstruction enhancement are reviewed for clear error