the evidence of Morales’s substance abuse and the alleged discrepancies between his testimony at the sentencing proceedings and earlier statements he made to the police, the district court had an adequate basis for concluding that Morales’s statements were sufficiently reliable. Morales’s statements were given under oath, and much of his testimony relating to the details of the drug pick-ups made by A. Walker was corroborated by trial testimony from A. Walker’s sister, Carmen Cantrell. Also, the district court pointed to the fact that Morales had testified reliably on previous occasions before the court. Given these facts, we hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion by relying on Morales’s testimony. See United States v. Johansson, 249 F.3d 848, 857 (9th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Chee, 110 F.3d 1489, 1492-93
holding that the  district court did not give the plaintiffs an adequate opportunity to be heard where it failed to conduct an in limine hearing and denied oral argument on the evidentiary issues holding that there was no prejudice where had the district court allowed the moving party the proper opportunity to respond the evidence would have been properly in front of the district court holding that defendants due process interests at sentencing were protected where district court allowed parties an opportunity to develop evidence and submit memoranda and held an evidentiary hearing where both sides had the opportunity to present witnesses and argue holding that due process requirements were satisfied where the plaintiff had opportunity to hear and crossexamine all adverse witnesses and to attempt to rebut their claims of insubordination and mishandling of funds holding that the constitutional right to present a defense is not violated by the exclusion of a defendants proffered evidence where he is otherwise given the opportunity to present his defense and crossexamine the key prosecution witnesses