With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". court failed to apply a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard in imposing a life term of supervised release is without merit. The government bears the burden of proving the applicability of guidelines that enhance a defendant’s offense level. United States v. Cataldo, 171 F.3d 1316, 1321 (11th Cir.1999). The district court’s factual findings for purposes of sentencing may be based on, among other things, evidence heard during trial, undisputed statements in the PSI, or evidence presented during the sentencing hearing. United States v. Saunders, 318 F.3d 1257, 1271 n. 22 (11th Cir .2003). It is well-settled that where a defendant does not object to the facts of the PSI, they are deemed admitted for Booker purposes. See United States v. Shelton, 400 F.3d 1325, 1330 (11th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). “It is also established law that the failure

A: holding that statements in proof of loss are not conclusive claimant could explain statements
B: holding rule 16 does not apply to oral statements other than statements of the defendant
C: holding that a defendant admits to the psis factual statements about his relevant conduct where he raises no objections to those statements
D: holding analysts statements insufficient to satisfy particularity requirements because plaintiffs failed to identify with specificity the statements made by a particular defendant or describe how those statements were false or misleading
C.