time to time issue one has to do with the multiplier rested in calculating drug quantity we believe that that was determined on unreliable evidence the multiplier method they were referring to is simply taking quantities known quantities of a drug and then looking at the numbers of occurrences and multiplying those and coming up with a total drug quality calculation that she was not objected to in the district court is that right that's right that's correct and that would be plain error review well the that's based on the the cell phone data some of which is missing that we also have an affirmative step from from his herrera which would support the district court's finding it seems to me as long as there is evidence in the record to support the district court we can't becomes suspect you're going to look at her reliability connection with with what she said and i think that that's appropriate to look at the reliability of what happened as your crappy cell phone  testimony related to them if someone has a story out of this should not be allowed i think in his case if you look at the reliability of the person who did that this was a person who was a co spirator who was if you will forward to the government she had helped bring a lot of their cases and so she was a very significant witness and she was sponsored by the government if you will the law enforcement people and she wiped it clean just quickly destroyed everything was on there and he gave her that so it went to him this is a little bit different in so slowly cases we say you have to have some bad conduct on something like the cindy hearing said that he was doing this because she wanted to protect herself i guess after she was convicted and found guilty she had been trying to trial i think october november found guilty was it after that after that she decided she needed to cooperate and provide information to the government so you have someone who initially they didn't feel was very trustworthy and reliable got reliable or she was convicted because you know she has to help herself so you have a combination of two people i statement on the record that regardless of how the guidelines were calculated and he ruled if you rolling your client's favor on all the issues that were of the objections he sat would pick the same sentence anyway given this defendant's criminal history say that if you if you have an ambiguity like this that that you have it you have a problem you have to go back and look at the whole record in trying to determine what the what the judges intent was in that case i don't know of any any requirement otherwise that i've seen in my experience a number of times when judges do say that in court that this is the same sense i would pose regardless they'll also put it in the statement of of record but bu did then i don't think it's required but i think in this when you read the statements that he didn't make and then you see the absence of it i think what it does is it further creates ambiguity of what what did he really mean you've save some time method that's correct as well here we don't have some seizure of drugs on one occasion that's extrapolated to a number of other occasions here we have a known quantity of drugs and a daily occurrence for unknown period of time simply because multiplication is involved doesn't mean the multiplier method is involved the cabrera case cited by the appellant uses examples of drug cases where a seizure occurred once and it's applied to twelve transactions over an extended conspiracy and the th circuit said that's that's not sufficiently reliable but we don't have that here here we have direct testimony by his source of supply who was party to those transaction verifying that they occurred in one to three ounce quantities every day over a two month time period there's no multiplier method in play even if the fact is even if we boil down to a fact question about whether there was sufficient evidence of the drug quantity lopez would tell us that on play narrow we don't even go there that was ultimately as you're on a pointed out a fact question that we shouldn't disturb it has additional corners having to weigh that evidence in the st place and make that determination at sentencing this case is nothing but a disagreement with the district court's judgment call the court sees these types of challenges all the time and his claims fail for three reasons the p r has ample evidence jury basis as well as sufficient condition or liability at no time has the appellant rebutted those facts beyond bare objections pertaining to one source of information and finally these types of credibility determinations are afforded great deference by the court on appeal and as a result we would ask the court to decline kirby's invitation to reweigh the facts in his favor and instead of from the sentence in all respects the record of page one shows that the p s r here was based on investigative reports from a laundry list of federal agencies this was an extensive investigation on top of that the probation officer interviewed three different task force agents that were involved and use those interviews to corroborate the information from the investigative reports and then they didn't and clarifies that the rd source of information where the proffer statements offered by mrs herrera in this case time and time again this court has affirmed those types of sources as having adequate and in chile value recently united states versus rico we had a sentence enhanced minute issue the defendant claimed you can't rely on those statements those  there they have an interest and in making those statements that's unreliable and this court said look i have an adequate p s r you have interviews with the agent that's that's sufficient even in light of the potential self interest involved with a code fendant testifying so the bases the evidentiary basis here is not in question the rebuttal of that information never took place either we don't have any evidence offered by mr kirby to rebut the facts that the pro statements of mr era we don't have to mr money from his customers about the quantity or the frequency of those transactions he alleges that he sold them at them that i mean to support his own habit we don't have any evidence about what that intravenous quantity was or what it would take from a sales standpoint to support that habit we don't have his cell phone records corroborate in the frequency of those transactions he didn't testify at the sentencing hearing and he simply made an objection to the reliability of ms herrera and rested on that too about the facts that this court has made clear in united states versus neva and others that simply claiming a source is unreliable doesn't affirmatively rebut the facts that are in the p quantity that's a determination that simply has to show reasonable has to be a reasonable approximation you need a preponderance of the evidence to show a reasonable approximation of the drug want to do this is not an exact calculation that requires a text message by text message corroboration of the drug amounts there is no authority in this circuit to support that burden of proof and the burden lies with mr kirby as soon as the p s r has sufficient indication of reliability the onus is on him to put evidence into the records and then seemed to disprove and to show that those facts are materially on reliable or materially untrue once he fails to meet that burden the district court can adopt the p s r without further inquiry here we go even a step better agent finney testified it's an insane as to not only the cell phone issue but to the credibility and reliability of herrera the district court specifically questioned the agent and said i know we have this issue she lived her phone after she was arrested that's months before she decided to cooperate but once she did decide to cooperate did you find her to be credible was she reliable and without hesitation agents and he said absolutely we corroborated her information on facebook and shot multiple cell phones so in other text messages we used her information to arrest and prosecute fifteen to twenty different co defendants in that case as soon as she started cooperating we found her evidence to be incredibly valuable and i don't question it in any regard so judgment brought at that point can assess the credibility of it of herrera through the engine's testimony at sentencing and it's entirely his judgment call as to which version of events is the more credible version of events and and this court has time and time again declined to insert itself into that determination on appeal and we talk a minute about the knowledge of the importation of the math from from mexico are there any supreme court cases recently that give you some pause on our pres states of mexico that was doing all the mail now so i'm assuming if i know this from sitting on one case in the court of appeals that the drug drug dealers who are dealing a pound a month probably have some and redistributed herrera statements indicated between one dollar and three dollars ounces were transacted daily so even if we take an average of those numbers and you take two ounces of methamphetamine and you use the time frame that he offers the forty day time frame you're at two two kilos of methamphetamine you're still in office level thirty two dollars so that is record actually gave him a huge benefit of the doubt in using the one ounce quantity when in fact he did made it to multi ounce transactions with herrera's so there really can't be any question on this record that this was a reasonable approximation of the drug quantity based on the completely unrelated evidence in the p s would point the court to united states versus rogers as just one example where the district court made a credibility determination on facts that are notably different from these and rogers we had a series of confidential informants that were used to establish drug quantity in that case the defendant was able to affirmatively demonstrate that portions of that drug quantity could not be true because she was incarcerated at the time of those transactions and this court explained that even though that evidence had been affirmatively disproved in part because there was corroboration of other aspects of the conspiracy and because that didn't directly rebut the drug quantity it was still proper for the district court to based on age and testimony of that sin and seen to find those estimations to be reliable and to affirm the drug quantity determination in that case we don't even get close to that here we don't have any evidence that mr kirby was imprisoned during the time of the sixty  issue or that he was out of town or not participating for some reason we have no direct rebuttal of the quantity he simply challenges the approximation and this court's precedent makes clear that it won't it's are in store itself into a credibility determination of that sor unless the court has additional questions on this issue or the other issues raised by mr kirby the government would briefly night that a number of issues are raised for the st time in his reply  brief those issues are plainly waived in this appeal and as a result the government will cede its time and rely on its brief in asking the court to refine the sentence