did not require the district court to determine that the defendant committed murder, but only that he obstructed a homicide investigation). See United States v. Constantine, 263 F.3d 1122, 1125 n. 2 (10th Cir.2001) (affirming a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard for facts that enhance a defendant’s offense level 4 levels); United States v. Valdez, 225 F.3d 1137, 1143 n. 2 (10th Cir.2000) (rejecting the defendant’s argument that a dramatic increase in a sentence because of a sentencing judge's finding of additional amounts of methamphetamine associated with acquitted charges entitled the defendant to a clear-and-convincing evidence standard at sentencing, and noting that the Tenth Circuit "foreclosed by binding precedent” this argument); United States v. Washington, 11 F.3d at 1516 (<HOLDING>). 6 . United States v. Hendrickson is an
holding that a district court may find acquitted conduct by a preponderance of the evidence holding that a district court need not find by any more than a preponderance of the evidence the amount of cocaine a defendant distributed even though its findings increased the defendants sentence from twenty years to consecutive fortyyear terms holding the delays of more than six years did not amount to the denial of access to the courts holding that in order to satisfy due process findings made at sentencing need only be based upon a preponderance of the evidence holding that the district court determines the amount of loss under the preponderance of the evidence standard