repeated false labor sheets constituted only “a simple repetition of a simple plan” (emphasis omitted)); United States v. Rust, 976 F.2d 55, 57 (1st Cir.1992) (requiring enhanced sentence for repeated acts, even assuming defendant “engaged in no more planning than would be typical for the crime of mail fraud, which, by its very nature, involves planning”); see generally Kim, 23 F.3d at 515 (noting two “guideline paradigms of more than minimal planning — repeated acts and more planning than is typical for the simple form of the crime”). Reviewing the sentencing court’s factual findings for clear error, and giving due deference to its application of the Guidelines to the facts, we find the third prong of the more than minimal planning enhancement satisfied here. See Kim, 23 F.3d at 517 (<HOLDING>). Although the presentence report did not
holding that district court is entitled to substantial deference in its determination that particular facts of case implicate a departure factor holding that where the issue before the court is legal as opposed to factual an appellate court need not give deference to a trial courts decision holding that an appellate court must give deference to the trial judges determination of juror competency holding that appellate court should afford due deference to district court determination that defendant engaged in more than minimal planning holding that more than notice to a defendant is required