committed.” The court thus concluded that the crime “to which Mr. Delgado pled guilty was a crime of violence.” Other than a general objection to reb-anee on the police report, Delgado offered nothing about the circumstances of the plea hearing or the creation of the police report to challenge the sentencing court’s conclusion that Delgado and the government both believed that he was entering a guilty plea to the “generically violent crime” of breaking and entering a dwelling. Harris, 964 F.2d at 1236. In the absence of such a proffer, we conclude that there was no clear error in the district court’s finding that, by a preponderance of the evidence, Delgado pled guilty to the amended charge of breaking and entering a dwelling with intent to commit a felony. See Damon, 127 F.3d at 141 (<HOLDING>). Delgado gains nothing by arguing that the
holding that the government must prove the facts used in sentencing by a preponderance of the evidence holding that findings of fact are reviewed for clear error holding that factual findings in sentencing context are reviewed for clear error holding that factual conclusions of sentencing court which must be supported by a preponderance of the evidence are reviewed for clear error holding that district courts factual findings for purposes of obstruction enhancement are reviewed for clear error