context: The argument fails because the district court was not required to resolve all aspects of the source of the funds to find that they were drug proceeds for purposes of Guidelines calculations. It needed only to make a preponderance finding that the monies, more likely than not, derived from drug trafficking.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 562 F.3d 433, 447
citation_a.parenthetical: concluding that preponderance finding was satisfied if fact's existence was "more likely than not"
citation_a.sentence: See United States v. Jones, 531 F.3d at 175 (using preponderance standard to determine drug quantity based on currency under Guidelines); see also United States v. Hertular, 562 F.3d 433, 447 (2d Cir.2009) (concluding that preponderance finding was satisfied if fact’s existence was “more likely than not”).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 531 F.3d 175, 175
citation_b.parenthetical: using preponderance standard to determine drug quantity based on currency under Guidelines
citation_b.sentence: See United States v. Jones, 531 F.3d at 175 (using preponderance standard to determine drug quantity based on currency under Guidelines); see also United States v. Hertular, 562 F.3d 433, 447 (2d Cir.2009) (concluding that preponderance finding was satisfied if fact’s existence was “more likely than not”).