Sentence for operating an unlicensed money transmitting business is affirmed over defendant's claims that: 1) the sentence resulted from an unreasonable application of the factors contained in 18 U.S.C section 3553(a); 2) the district court violated his right to be meaningfully present at his own trial by refusing to provide him with a recording of a language interpreter used at sentencing; and 3) the district court violated the Ex Post Facto Clause by applying the amended version of 18 U.S.C. section 1960 to conduct he committed prior to the enactment date of the amended statute.