Government engaged in sentencing manipulation. Had the Government arrested him on September 22, 2012 instead of November 2, 2012, he ■would have faced a different mandatory minimum based on drug quantity. “[Sentencing factor manipulation occurs when the government’s manipulation of a sting operation, even if insufficient to support a due process claim, requires that the manipulation be filtered out of the sentenc ing calculus.” United States v. Ciszkowski, 492 F.3d 1264, 1270 (11th Cir.2007). “[T]he government must engage in extraordinary misconduct” for a sting operation to constitute sentencing factor manipulation. Id. at 1271. The party raising the defense of sentence factor manipulation bears the “burden of establishing that the government’s conduct is sufficiently r 11th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). AFFIRMED. 1 . North Carolina v. Alford, 400
holding that court of appeals erred by rendering judgment for full amount of attorneys fees sought after reversing 0 fee award because jury awarded less in damages than amount sought and therefore uncontroverted attorney testimony on amount of attorneys fees did not establish amount of reasonable and necessary fees as a matter of law holding that a large amount of drugs increases the likelihood of weapons holding intent may be inferred from large amount of marijuana holding in a ease of a reverse sting operation the use of a large amount of drugs did not amount to sentencing factor manipulation holding that when trial court orders restitution at sentencing pursuant to statute the defendant is entitled to notice of the amount claimed and the opportunity to dispute the amount