total amount of forged cheeks deposited by Wade and her codefendants. Wade argued that each codefendant engaged in separate transactions and that United S iew Wade’s ultimate sentence for reasonableness. Id. We reject Wade’s challenge to the district court’s use of the preponderance of the evidence standard. We have previously determined that “the remedial opinion in Booker held that such judicial fact-finding [by the preponderance of the evidence] for sentencing purposes does not violate the Sixth Amendment when made as part of an advisory Guidelines regime.” United States v. Vaughn, 410 F.3d 1002, 1004 (8th Cir.2005), cert, denied, — U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 1103, — L.Ed.2d -, 2006 WL 37911 (2005). See also United States v. Patient Transfer Service, Inc., 413 F.3d 734, 745 (8th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). The district court properly applied the
recognizing the supreme courts holding in ferber recognizing that the supreme court maintained the trial courts fact finding authority without setting a new standard in booker holding that when court applies the clearly erroneous standard court may not reverse boards finding of fact if after court reviews the record in its entirety the finding is supported by a plausible basis holding that the supreme courts proper scope of review of a trial courts decision in a trial de novo of an assessment matter is whether the decision of the trial court was clearly erroneous holding that district court opinion which cites controlling authority that is pending review in florida supreme court allows supreme court to exercise jurisdiction