contends that the SBA unjustifiably delayed in attempting to recover funds from the loan’s guarantors. The only guarantors other than MWI and McCoy, however, were McCoy’s relatives, and she has offered no evidence that there was any realistic prospect of a recovery from them that would have materially affected her guidelines calculation. 8 . See United States v. Lutz, 154 F.3d 581, 590 (6th Cir. 1998); United States v. Viemont, 91 F.3d 946, 952 (7th Cir. 1996); United States v. Clements, 73 F.3d 1330, 1340-41 (5th Cir. 1996); United States v. Bridges, 50 F.3d 789, 791 (10th Cir.1994); United States v. Mullins, 996 F.2d 1170, 1171 (11th Cir. 1993); United States v. Rust, 976 F.2d 55, 57 (1st Cir.1992). 9 . See generally United States v. Valdez-Torres, 108 F.3d 385, 390 (D.C.Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Strothers, 77 F.3d 1389,
holding that the information contained in a presentence report is reliable because it is based upon the presentence officers research of the records contact with relevant agencies and the gathering of information which is required to be included in a presentence report holding that if the government fails to object to the presentence report the district courts reliance on the report is reviewed for plain error holding that by adopting the presentence report the district court made the requisite finding under the guidelines holding that the district court committed plain error in relying solely on the factual description in the presentence report holding district courts adoption of the presentence report constitutes sufficient findings