With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". involved “close to a dozen” individuals, that Walls was “at or near the top of ... the organizational structure” and that Walls “claimed a substantial share of the profits and manipulated those profits.” Id. Regardless of the exact parameters of § 3Bl.l(a) review in light of Buford, it is clear that factual findings made by the district court are reviewed for clear error. United States v. Hazelwood, 398 F.3d 792, 795 (6th Cir.2005). With regard to the factual findings of the district judge, there is no evidence in the record to suggest the district court committed clear error. Even under de novo review of the law, given these findings, Walls would satisfy the requirements for imposition of a § 3Bl.l(a) enhancement. See United States v. Moncivais, 492 F.3d 652, 660-61 (6th Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>); see also Milan, 218 Fed.Appx. at 496-97

A: holding the large quantity of drugs sufficient evidence of intent to distribute
B: holding that another courts decision is a proper subject of judicial notice
C: holding that a defendant who supplied another with drugs gave another orders and had a large stake in the profitability of the drug organization is subject to a  3blla enhancement
D: holding that a large amount of drugs increases the likelihood of weapons
C.