context: After de novo review, we find no legal error in the district court's conclusion that, based on the facts admitted by Hunt, the SS 2K2.1(b)(5) enhancement applied.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.parenthetical: rejecting Booker constitutional challenge to district court's imposition of U.S.S.G. SS 2B3.1(b
citation_a.sentence: See United States v. Cover, 199 F.3d 1270, 1274 (11th Cir.2000) ("In sentencing guidelines cases, we review for clear error a district court’s factual findings and review de novo the district court’s application of law to those facts.”); see also United States v. Petho, 409 F.3d 1277, 1279-80 n. 1 (11th Cir.2005) (rejecting Booker constitutional challenge to district court's imposition of U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1(b)(2)(F) enhancement for making a threat of death in the course of robbery of a financial institution; defendant admitted underlying facts and "[t]he determinations that the bank was a financial institution and that the note constituted a threat of death were not factual findings, but legal conclusions properly made by the court”).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 199 F.3d 1270, 1274
citation_b.parenthetical: "In sentencing guidelines cases, we review for clear error a district court's factual findings and review de novo the district court's application of law to those facts."
citation_b.sentence: See United States v. Cover, 199 F.3d 1270, 1274 (11th Cir.2000) ("In sentencing guidelines cases, we review for clear error a district court’s factual findings and review de novo the district court’s application of law to those facts.”); see also United States v. Petho, 409 F.3d 1277, 1279-80 n. 1 (11th Cir.2005) (rejecting Booker constitutional challenge to district court's imposition of U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1(b)(2)(F) enhancement for making a threat of death in the course of robbery of a financial institution; defendant admitted underlying facts and "[t]he determinations that the bank was a financial institution and that the note constituted a threat of death were not factual findings, but legal conclusions properly made by the court”).