aliens. The government responds that ample evidence supports the court’s conclusion. The reasonableness of the district court’s sentencing departures are generally reviewed for abuse of discretion, and whether the district court based its departures on a permissible factor is reviewed de novo. United States v. Long Turkey, 342 F.3d 856, 859-61 (8th Cir.2003). Here, however, Yu does not argue that the court could not have departed upward had it correctly found that he transported 1,000 aliens; he argues instead that this factual finding is not supported by the evidence. We review a challenge to the factual conclusions of a sentencing court for clear error. See United States v. Killgo, 397 F.3d 628, 631 (8th Cir.2005); see also United States v. Haack, 403 F.3d 997, 1004 (8th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). The sentencing guidelines provide that an
holding that trial court clearly abuses its discretion if it reaches decision so arbitrary and unreasonable as to amount to clear and prejudicial error of law recognizing that the trial court abuses its discretion when it commits an error of law in reaching a discretionary decision holding a court abuses its discretion when it commits an error of law holding that sentencing court abuses its discretion by committing a clear error of judgment holding that a court abuses its discretion by making clear errors of judgment