contained therein that mirror the arguments they make on appeal. The probation officer then filed an addendum to the Presentence Report, responding to the Webbs’ objections. After conducting a sentencing hearing, the district court adopted the Presentence Report as amended and sentenced both Bobby and Preston Webb to 235 months of imprisonment. This timely appeal followed. II. ANALYSIS A. Standard of review In reviewing a district court’s application of the Sentencing Guidelines, we “accept the findings of fact of the district court unless they are clearly erroneous and ... give due deference to the district court’s application of the guidelines to the facts.” 18 U.S.C. § 3742(e). In light of Buford v. United States, 532 U.S. 59, 63-66, 121 S.Ct. 1276, 149 L.Ed.2d 197 (2001) (<HOLDING>), this court has held that our standard of
holding that the district court was entitled to deference in its application of  4b12 of the sentencing guidelines in a case where the underlying facts were undisputed holding that we review factual findings underlying a decision to apply a sentencing enhancement for clear error and give due deference to the district courts application of the guidelines to the facts recognizing that where material facts are undisputed the court only decides the application of relevant law holding that when the facts of a robbery are undisputed the imposition of the enhancement is a question of the application of the guidelines to be reviewed de novo holding that district court is entitled to substantial deference in its determination that particular facts of case implicate a departure factor