requirement of corroboration perhaps the government's own brief cites cases that specifically reject the notion court stated we have never held that corroboration is is essential in sentencing the whole history of sentencing cuts the other way until recently judges who lived on involve the same weapon as such cannot be considered relevant conduct there was never a statement of credibility and the judge adopted that same reasoning at the guidelines six a one three states clearly that what matters is reliability not cooperation there's nothing in the law that requires corroboration reliability and here and argon i disagree that he denied it because there was no corroboration and he did not stand i do not believe i mean the court is parting from the wrong chromos both probation where he lives in a residential project and that i persisted do not time period at that time he didn't know he was going to be charged for the robberies then comes the indictment   that renders it reliable and in addition to that both statements corroborate each other that there is sufficient grounds to believe that was such a short period of time and his prior statement that there was a that the statement was reliable the nd ground for rejection which has to do with the fact that he did not consider that if it was the same a gun that was that a fact the court also provided an alternative basis which was that in matter if it was the same gun or not that part of the reason that the court part of what the court based sentence on was the dismissed charges so it was considering all of the and that someone gave it to him that was completely unreliable here's a statement to indian government never stated what was the basis of their information never identified who gave him that farm never identified how do you know allegedly obtained that information and so that was clearly unreliable hearsay and what's incredible is that the judge is instead of instead of asking the proper question how did you get that information what's to basis he sees and out to say oh it was probably rented which is another spe because i think this court could readily conclude that guideline five g one point two b does not apply so there was no procedural error at sentencing and that the imposition of a consecutive sentence was substantively reasonable and was this court knows five g one point b seventeen did not occur during the commission of the february th robberies and because it came afterwards it was certainly not in preparation for those robberies there's been no argument or evidence that the march one possession of the firearm was somehow an attempt to cover up the requires a threshold condition that the fences be eligible for grouping and it's very specific it kicks over to the group in guideline three d one dollar subsection d and subsection d of the group in guideline has a specific list of offenses that it says even get to the question of whether or not the gun possession in march st is part of the same course of conduct as the robberies are part of a common scheme or plan which is where the factual question of whether or not it was of the same relevant conduct so for purposes of the guidelines by the one three d it doesn't apply and as a as a guidelines matter it's left the district court's discretion and whether to impose a sentence consecutively and concurrently and certainly the government's admits that the district court's choice here to run the sentence consecutively was substantively reasonable look at the seriousness of the offense conduct to robberies and one day in both robberies mr  four c counts were getting dismissed which takes our exposure to fifty years in prison so that was a substantial benefit mr grant as many no doubt by pleading guilty and of course if you look at his criminal history he commits the two robberies while he's out on so in that sense there's a problem with the government's position and the nurses the judges and also the problem is with the reasons given by the judge the government now months so that was already taken into consideration and the judge then stated that he was rejecting the relatedness based on that he was quite specific that he did not feel that the and we just can't start inventing additional reasons to justify what the record does not support it what the record does support is that there was one of our friends when he was that robbery does not include it doesn't in fact analysis why because had count five not been dismissed it would not have been taken into consideration because