evidence working against him, Defendant cannot establish a reasonable probability that the district court’s explanatory error caused him prejudice. See Cook, 550 F.3d at 1298-99. B. Defendant also challenges the district court’s factual finding that the $8,450.00 found on his person on June 30, 2007 represented the fruits of the drug trade. We review a district court’s factual finding at sentencing for clear error, reversing only if that finding is “wholly without factual support in the record.” United States v. Ivory, 532 F.3d 1095, 1103 (10th Cir.2008). The record in this case, as described above, clearly supports the district court’s conclusion that Defendant obtained the $8,450.00 in question through drug trafficking. See United States v. Brown, 556 F.3d 1108, 1110 (10th Cir.2009) (<HOLDING>). For many of the same reasons we rejected
holding that the government must prove the facts used in sentencing by a preponderance of the evidence holding that under the advisory guidelines a district court should resolve factual disputes at sentencing by applying the preponderance of the evidence standard holding that the preponderance standard is generally appropriate in guidelines sentencing recognizing that sentencing facts are based on the evidence and testimony presented at sentencing under a preponderance of the evidence standard holding that in order to satisfy due process findings made at sentencing need only be based upon a preponderance of the evidence