and imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742, and affirm. The facts of this case are known to the parties and need not be discussed here. The upward adjustments are supported by a preponderance of the evidence. See United States v. Pham, 545 F.3d 712, 720 (9th Cir.2008) (citation omitted). The district court’s factual findings supporting each adjustment were not illogical, implausible, or without support in the record. See United States v. Hinkson, 585 F.3d 1247, 1262 (9th Cir.2009) (en banc) (citation omitted). The application of enhancements for possession of images of minors under twelve and sadistic or masochistic images was not plain error. See United States v. Holt, 510 F.3d 1007, 1011-12 (9th Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>). The district court properly considered the 18
holding a single vulnerable victim is sufficient to support application of the vulnerable victim enhancement holding bank customers affected by embezzlement could be victims for purposes of vulnerable victim enhancement holding application of vulnerable victim and sadistic or masochistic image adjustments was not impermissible double counting because the adjustments account for distinct wrongs holding that the commissions express prohibition of double counting in certain instances indicates its intent to permit double counting in other instances holding vulnerable victim factor sufficiently supported by evidence that victim was 82 and physically unable to resist attackers