With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Court’s findings of fact regarding the § 2G2.2(b)(5) enhancement were erroneous. See United States v. Foster, 155 F.3d 1329, 1331 (11th Cir. 1998). The District Court did not clearly err in finding the government proved the factual basis for the enhancement by a preponderance of the evidence. See Askew, 193 F.3d at 1183. B. TEMPORAL PROXIMITY Second, Mr. Alberts says even assuming he engaged in sexual acts with his younger relatives when he was a teenager, this happened 30 years ago and is therefore “too attenuated” and “egregiously too far into the past as a matter of law” to support a “pattern of activity” enhancement under USSG § 2G2.2(b)(5). He concedes this argument is foreclosed by this Court’s binding precedent in United States v. Turner, 626 F.3d 566, 572 (11th Cir. 2010) (<HOLDING>). However he wishes to preserve the argument

A: holding that plaintiffs allegation that defendant engaged in multiple instances of mail and wire fraud did not allege pattern of racketeering activity with sufficient particularity
B: holding that  2g22b5 does not place a time limit on past instances of sexual abuse or exploitation a court may consider in finding a pattern of activity
C: holding evidence of outofstate instances of abuse admissible in child sexual abuse case to show intent opportunity and relationship between defendant and victim
D: holding that incidents of sexual abuse that occurred from 19741978 could establish a pattern of activity for purposes of sentencing in 2001
B.