or abuse a position of trust with respect to the government. While Harness may be correct in arguing that he did not occupy or abuse a position of trust with respect to the government, his argument ignores the fact that the PSR identified the victim in this case as the Red Cross. The PSR states that Harness was responsible for diverting approximately $20,000 from the Red Cross. See PSR at 5, ¶ 16. This fact supports the district court’s conclusion that the Red Cross was a victim in this case. In any event, Harness did not object to the PSR’s conclusion that the Red Cross was the victim of the offense, see id. at 5, ¶ 17, and the district court was entitled to rely on that conclusion for purposes of applying the enhancement. See United States v. Hedges, 175 F.3d 1312 (11th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). Having concluded that the Red Cross was a
holding that district court may find facts to support both factors by adopting psr holding that party may not rely on conclusory statements or an argument that the affidavits in support of the motion for summary judgment are not credible holding conclusory assertions of intent to cause insufficient without supporting facts holding that vague conclusory statements are insufficient holding that a district court may rely on undisputed conclusory statements in the psr even in the absence of supporting evidence