in the planned attack. Government Trial Ex. 2C. Eleven days later, he told Jaweed he intended to use his portion of the proceeds of the drug sales to purchase a car. Government Trial Ex. 2D. Mohammed argues that his statements about buying a car indicate nothing more than that he intended to buy the car for his personal use or to help in his drug trafficking. He claims that his statements cannot be read to support the conclusion of the district court that he was referring to the same car that he said earlier would carry the missiles. Although Mohammed’s objection may show that the record can support alternate interpretations, it is far from proof that the district court’s reading of these conversations is clearly erroneous. See United States v. Erazo, 628 F.3d 608, 611 (D.C.Cir.2011) (<HOLDING>). Clear error review is exacting: to reverse a
holding that we review for clear error a district courts factual determination as to whether prior cases were consolidated for sentencing under ussg  4a12a2 and that we give the court due deference in its application of the guidelines to that determination holding that we review for clear error the bankruptcy courts factual findings holding that district courts factual findings for purposes of obstruction enhancement are reviewed for clear error 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