on April 24, 2008, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C) ("Count 7”). 2 . Chisolm submits that Bolware’s testimony was incredible as matter of law because Bol-ware testified that he and Chisolm on occasion would drive to Dothan, which was approximately 100 miles away, once or twice a day and yet would still have time to sell drugs. However, Bolware testified that he rarely went to Dothan twice in one day and that he sometimes would have a buyer lined up to give drugs to immediately upon his return. This testimony is not incredible as matter of law because driving 400 miles in a day and dropping something off to someone who was waiting for it is not an impossible event. See United States v. Thompson, 422 F.3d 1285, 1291-92 (11th Cir.2005) (citation and alteration omitted) (<HOLDING>). 3 . As discussed previously, sufficient
holding that testi mony is incredible as a matter of law when it is unbelievable on its face and relates to facts that the witness physically could not have possibly observed or events that could not have occurred under the laws of nature internal quotations and brackets omitted holding that a witnesss testimony is incredible as a matter of law if the witness testifies as to facts that the witness could not have possibly observed or events that could not have occurred under the laws of nature holding that testimony is incredible as a matter of law when it is unbelievable on its face and relates to facts that the witness physically could not have possibly observed or events that could not have occurred under the laws of nature holding that a trial witnesss testimony as to the credibility of another witness was prejudicial error holding that lay testimony is competent if it is limited to matters that the witness has actually observed and is within the realm of the witnesss personal knowledge