286 F.3d at 1299. The enhancement only applies if: (1) the defendant abused a position of trust with respect to the victim of the crime; and (2) the position of trust contributed in a significant way to facilitating the offense. Harness, 180 F.3d at 1236. Rogers fails to satisfy the plain error test. He has not demonstrated a reasonable probability that the district court would have imposed different sentences had it not employed the abuse-of-trust enhancement. The sentences Rogers received at the bottom of his Guidelines sentencing range, were within the sentencing range the court would have used had it not made the enhancement, and the court gave no indication that it would have been inclined to give lower sentences. Cf United States v. Wood, 430 F.3d 1323, 1326 (11th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Fields, 408 F.3d 1356, 1361
holding that consideration by a sentencing court of acquitted conduct was appropriate in establishing the applicable guideline range or in determining the sentence to impose within the guideline range holding that a defendant met the third prong of plain error analysis demonstrating prejudice resulting from a booker error where the sentencing judge made several statements indicating the mandatory guideline sentence was very very severe and sentenced the defendant at the low end of the guideline range holding in booker error case where defendant was sentenced at lowend of guideline range that defendant did not establish a reasonable probability of a different result where court expressed no desire to impose a lower sentence holding that the fact that the defendant was sentenced to the bottom of the mandatory guidelines range without more was insufficient to satisfy the third prongs requirement that the defendant show a reasonable probability of a lesser sentence under an advisory guideline system holding that there is simply no booker error where a defendant was sentenced to the statutory minimum sentence