in determining that there were minimal indicia supporting the affidavit’s reliability. See United States v. Littlesun, 444 F.3d 1196 (9th Cir.2006). Among other things, the district court properly deferred to the credibility determination of the judge who had observed Emmett’s in-court testimony. In addition, the fact that the recantation itself appeared to have been coached supports the court’s finding that Christenot sought to influence Emmett’s testimony. See United States v. Fernandez-Vidana, 857 F.2d 673, 675 (9th Cir.1988) (“Only when the hearsay is so inadequately supported that the ‘factual basis for believing [it is] almost nil’ can it be argued that the evidence should not have been considered” in sentencing); see also United States v. Berry, 258 F.3d 971, 975 (9th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). AFFIRMED. ** This disposition is not
holding that review consists of entire record including the trial on the merits to determine whether there is any probative evidence that venue was proper holding that an appellate court is not required to search the appellate record with no guidance from the briefing party to determine if the record supports the partys argument holding that in reviewing a jury instruction this court must review the entire instruction and look at all the evidence on the record to determine whether there was error and whether that error prejudiced the complaining party holding that an appellate court may review the entire record to determine whether hearsay statements are sufficiently reliable holding that factors used in determining whether hearsay statements are sufficiently reliable to satisfy hearsay exceptions also apply to whether statements have sufficient guarantees of trustworthiness under confrontation clause