of a kilogram of heroin in the eight years between 2000 and 2008 appears to have ranged from $60,000 to roughly $100,000. See United States v. Aina-Marshall, 336 F.3d 167, 169 (2d Cir.2003); United States v. Azubike, 564 F.3d 59, 61 (1st Cir.2009). We assume that district judges in this circuit, who handle large numbers of wholesale-quantity drug cases each year, are familiar with these prices and require no further evidence unless the point is challenged. In short, because Nino admitted trafficking in a quantity of heroin with a wholesale value at least in the high six figures, that admission by itself provided a sufficient factual basis to support a preponderance finding that the proceeds realized by the conspiracy were at least $100,000. See United States v. Treacy, 639 F.3d at 48 (<HOLDING>); see also United States v. Benevento, 836 F.2d
holding that it may not holding that the district court properly exercised jurisdiction over a criminal forfeiture action where a state court in a related state court forfeiture proceeding had in personam jurisdiction over the same currency subject to forfeiture holding that double jeopardy clause did not apply to forfeiture proceeding before the court holding that forfeiture calculation is not exact science and that district court may make reasonable extrapolations from evidence holding that fact finder may draw reasonable inferences from evidence and choose which inference is most reasonable