the district court to allow false testimony to go unchallenged. Additionally, we find no evidence that the agents acted in bad faith when they approached Cummings and told him they thought he was lying. Indeed, the district court—which, we emphasize, had the opportunity to evaluate Cummings’s testimony first-hand—found that the government had good reason to accuse Cummings of perjury: [I]n light of what the government’s level of knowledge was, and you have to put it in context how, I hate to say silly, but his testimony was for a number of reasons far-fetched to begin with...-. The government ... had very good reason to approach [Cummings] and say we think you lied. (Sentencing Transcript at 11-12). We cannot conclude that this finding was clearly erroneous. See Buie, 923 F.2d at 12-13 (<HOLDING>). The testimony of the government witness,
holding that the district courts good faith finding is reviewed for clear error holding that the district courts credibility assessments are entitled to deference and reviewed for clear error holding that a district courts determination as to the applicability of a privilege is reviewed for clear error holding that district courts finding as to what state trial judge knew and did is a question of historical fact reviewed for clear error holding that findings of fact are reviewed for clear error