SUMMARY ORDER

Defendant-Appellant Steven Ahders appeals from an amended judgment entered on July 18, 2013, by the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (Mordue, J.), sentencing him to fifty years in prison for production of child pornography. On appeal, Ahders asserts that his sentence was procedurally unreasonable. In particular, he claims that (1) the district court lacked a sufficient factual basis for its finding that his offense “involved material that portrays sadistic or masochistic conduct,” U.S.S.G. § 2G2.1(b)(4), and (2) the district court improperly placed the burden on him to prove that this sentencing enhancement did not apply. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history, and issues on appeal.

We review the reasonableness of a district court’s sentence for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Mi Sun Cho, 713 F.3d 716, 722 (2d Cir. 2013). A sentence is procedurally unreasonable if the district court “fails to properly calculate the guideline range or rests its sentence on a clearly erroneous finding of fact.” Id. The burden of proving facts that support the application of a sentencing enhancement is on the government, and the necessary facts must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence. United States v. Archer, 671 F.3d 149, 161 (2d Cir. 2011).

Ahders argues first that the government did not adequately prove that the images at issue portrayed sadistic conduct. It is true that the government did not introduce copies of the alleged images. 1 How *610 ever, the district court did have before it evidence of statements made to law enforcement by the child whom Abders abused. In those statements, the child reported that Ahders had on occasion tied him by his wrists to the headboard of his mother’s bed or to the handlebars of a bike, blindfolded him, anally raped him, and recorded the abuse on videotapes or still photographs. The district court found those statements credible, and they are more than sufficient to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the present offense involved material that portrayed sadistic conduct. See United States v. Ahders, 622 F.3d 115, 121 (2d Cir. 2010) (per curiam) (noting that images of a child in bondage “surely are sadomasochistic in nature”).

Ahders next argues that the district court improperly shifted the burden of proof onto his shoulders. It did not. The district court simply recognized that the government had presented evidence showing that the present offense involved material portraying sadistic conduct, and that Ahders had failed to rebut that evidence.

We have considered Ahders’s remaining arguments and find they lack merit. For the reasons given above, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.