Lara

MEMORANDUM **

Jose Trinidad Lara appeals his twenty-year sentence for conspiracy to distribute and possession with intent to distribute cocaine and cocaine base, and to manufacture cocaine base. 1 Lara challenges his sentence on two grounds: (1) it was unrea *638 sonable; and (2) the district court committed constitutional error by finding facts underlying guideline enhancements by a preponderance of the evidence.

We dismiss Lara’s challenge to the reasonableness of his sentence because he waived his right to appeal nonconstitutional sentencing errors. 2 The district court’s obligation to impose a reasonable sentence is statutory, not constitutional. 3 Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to review Lara’s claim.

Although Lara’s challenge to the standard of proof used by the sentencing judge to find facts underlying guideline enhancements is a constitutional one, it lacks merit. There is no “requirement that such facts be found beyond a reasonable doubt.” 5 This is not an “exceptional case” 6 where the guideline enhancements have “an extremely disproportionate effect on the sentence relative to the offense of conviction.” 7 Therefore, “the preponderance of the evidence standard…