were arrested and a second search took place at their business. More Dilaudid tablets were seized at that time. B. Procedural background A superseding indictment on October 24, 2000 charged the Webbs both with conspiring to possess and with actually possessing Dilaudid, each with the intent to distribute. On February 8, 2001, both defendants pled guilty to all counts. The Webbs’ sentencing hearing took place in May of 2001. Although they did not object to the facts as presented in the Presen-tence Report, they filed four objections to the rec of a district court’s application of provisions of the Sentencing Guidelines to the facts should be treated deferentially and should not be disturbed unless clearly erroneous. United States v. Jackson-Randolph, 282 F.3d 369, 389-90 (6th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). B. The district court did not err in
holding that a trial courts sentencing is reviewed under a deferential abuse of discretion standard unless the order violates statutory or constitutional commands holding that a court of appeals may presume reasonable a district courts proper application of the sentencing guidelines holding that the standard of review for an award of statutory damages is even more deferential than an abuse of discretion standard holding that the supreme courts reasoning in buford leads to the use of a deferential standard of review in the application of the sentencing guidelines under circumstances involving factbound determinations holding unconstitutional the mandatory application of the federal sentencing guidelines