their fee petition several 2006 settlement letters, which contained estimates of their damages. See ECF No. 167, Ex. 5, 6, 7. The court’s erroneous factual finding, which was based in part on the court’s failure to ascertain whether appellants had provided damages estimates to the defendants, requires remand. The Employers’ response seems to be that appellants’ estimates were for “wildly varying amounts,” Oral Arg. Recording 39:26-39, and did not accurately predict the ultimate verdict of less than $6,000. These arguments fail at the outset because they misconstrue what the district court found, and we, as an appellate court, cannot reimagine the lower court’s factual findings. See, e.g., Icicle Seafoods, Inc. v. Worthington, 475 U.S. 709, 713-14, 106 S.Ct. 1527, 89 L.Ed.2d 739 (1986) (<HOLDING>). The district court’s complaints here were
recognizing that factual findings were clearly erroneous where the record before the court was simply devoid of any basis for the district courts conclusion holding that district courts factual findings for purposes of obstruction enhancement are reviewed for clear error holding the court of appeals was mistaken to engage in factfinding rather than simply reviewing the district courts factual findings for clear error holding that we review for clear error the bankruptcy courts factual findings holding that factual findings in sentencing context are reviewed for clear error