We review the district court's denial of "a motion to suppress evidence under a mixed standard, reviewing the court's findings of fact for clear error and the application of law to those facts de novo, construing the facts in the light most favorable to the prevailing party below." United States v. Pierre, 825 F.3d 1183, 1191 (11th Cir. 2016). The party challenging a search "bears the burdens of proof and persuasion."

We describe the relevant facts based on the body camera footage and testimony admitted at the suppression hearings and construe them in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, here, the government. United States v. Pierre, 825 F.3d 1183, 1191 (11th Cir. 2016). On December 20, 2019, Kolbe was on patrol on I-65 in Baldwin County, Alabama.

We review de novo the district court's interpretation and application of the Sentencing Guidelines, but a loss calculation is reviewed for clear error. See United States v. Pierre, 825 F.3d 1183, 1198 (11th Cir. 2016). In Hunter, we held that "the fact that the defendant knows about the larger operation, and has agreed to perform a particular act, does not amount to acquiescence in the acts of the criminal enterprise as a whole."

United States v. Pierre, 825 F.3d 1183, 1193 (11th Cir. 2016).

are left with a "definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." United States v. Pierre, 825 F.3d 1183, 1191 (11th Cir. 2016) (quotations omitted).

A traffic stop is supported by probable cause when "the facts and circumstances within the collective knowledge of law enforcement officials . . . are sufficient to cause a person of reasonable caution to believe an offense has been or is being committed." United States v. Pierre, 825 F.3d 1183, 1192 (11th Cir. 2016) (alteration in original) (quotation omitted). Under Florida law, driving with illegally tinted windows is a violation and serves as a valid basis for a traffic stop.

We reject a factual finding as clearly erroneous only if we are "left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." United States v. Pierre, 825 F.3d 1183, 1191 (11th Cir. 2016) (quoting United States v. Rothenberg, 610 F.3d 621, 624 (11th Cir. 2010)). We will affirm the district court's finding if it is "plausible in light of the record viewed in its entirety."

The government may also "present circumstantial evidence to prove knowledge of the scheme." United States v. Pierre, 825 F.3d 1183, 1193 (11th Cir. 2016). Likewise, "[m]ail fraud can be proved by circumstantial evidence."

We will conclude that a finding of fact is clearly erroneous only if we are "left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." United States v. Pierre, 825 F.3d 1183, 1191 (11th Cir. 2016). A district court can make factual findings for the loss amount based on undisputed facts in the Presentence Investigation Report ("PSI"), trial evidence, and evidence presented at sentencing.

We review challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a criminal conviction de novo, "viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government and drawing all reasonable inferences and credibility choices in favor of the verdict." United States v. Pierre, 825 F.3d 1183, 1191 (11th Cir. 2016). We will not reverse unless no reasonable trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.