With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". for unlawfully possessing a firearm, an explosive, and materials for creating fraudulent identifications. Pauckert contends that his sentence was procedurally and substantively unreasonable. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We vacate the sentence and remand to the district court for further action. 1. The district court properly imposed a sentencing enhancement for obstruction of justice under U.S.S.G. § 3C1:1. Pauckert’s instruction to Dodge to destroy the printers that were used to create the fraudulent identification materials may be subject to more than one interpretation, but the district court did not clearly err in concluding that the instruction was given with the purpose of destroying material evidence. See United States v. Garro, 517 F.3d 1163, 1171 (9th Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>). Under § 3C1.1, Application Note 4(D),

A: holding that the district courts findings of fact when ruling on a 12b1 motion are reviewed for clear error
B: holding that district courts factual findings for purposes of obstruction enhancement are reviewed for clear error
C: holding that factual findings in sentencing context are reviewed for clear error
D: holding that findings of fact from a bench trial are reviewed for clear error
B.