adds three levels where the "loss” is more than $250,000 but less than $800.000. No money was obtained in the Arias episode. However, we find that the "loss” was correctly determined by applying Application Note 3 to U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1(b)(7), which notes that valuation of loss is discussed in Commentary to § 2B1.1 (Larceny, Embezzlement and Other Forms of Theft). U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1 references §2X1.1 (Attempts... or Conspiracy), which states: "In an attempted theft, the value of the items that the defendant attempted to steal would be considered.” U.S.S.G. § 2X1.1, cmt. n. 2. There is no dispute that the amount of ransom initially demanded was $500,000. Accordingly, we find no error in the calculation of the loss. 63 . See Burks v. U.S., 437 U.S. 1, 98 S.Ct. 2141, 57 L.Ed.2d 1 (1978)
holding the double jeopardy clause applicable to the states through the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment holding that double jeopardy clause did not apply to forfeiture proceeding before the court holding that the double jeopardy clause precludes a second trial once the reviewing court has found the evidence legally insufficient holding that the double jeopardy clause precludes a second trial once the reviewing court finds the evidence legally insufficient and that the only just remedy is the direction of a judgment of acquittal holding that the dismissal of criminal charges for evidentiary insufficiency is an acquittal for purposes of the double jeopardy clause