Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Peter M. Espinosa presents arguments that he concedes are foreclosed as this court has repeatedly held that a sentencing judge may find by a preponderance of the evidence all the facts necessary to the determination of a sentencing guidelines range. See, e.g., United States v. Rhine, 583 F.3d 878, 891 (5th Cir. 2009); United States v. Stevens, 487 F.3d 232, 245-46 (5th Cir. 2007); United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 793, 798 (5th Cir. 2006). The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.