hearing, we review his sentence for plain error.”). Here, the district court found by a preponderance of the evidence that Waller murdered his wife. This act constitutes criminal misconduct. Like other prior criminal conduct, whether or not related to the offense of conviction, it is part of ‘the history and characteristics of the defendant’ that the district court ‘shall consider’ in imposing an appropriate sentence, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), and it may be relevant in a particular case to the factors enumerated in § 3553(a)(2). United States v. Loaiza-Sanchez, 622 F.3d 939, 942 (8th Cir.2010) (citing United States v. Jenners, 537 F.3d 832, 835-36 (8th Cir.2008) (noting that a court may consider uncharged criminal conduct)); United States v. Comer, 93 F.3d 1271, 1284 (6th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Aideyan, 11 F.3d 74, 76 (6th
holding sentencing courts may consider evidence of conduct or charges of which a defendant was acquitted holding that district court may treat acquitted conduct as relevant conduct at sentencing holding that the district court could constitutionally consider the acquitted conduct in rico sentencing holding that a sentencing court may consider acquitted conduct or uncharged criminal conduct holding that uncharged conduct may be considered at sentencing when that conduct is proven by a preponderance of the evidence