to its reliability.” Barhoumi, 609 F.3d at 428 (D.C.Cir.2010). As the Circuit has stated, “the question a habeas court must ask when presented with hearsay is not whether it is admissible — it is always admissible — but what probative weight to ascribe to whatever indicia of reliability it exhibits.” Al Bihani v. Obama, 590 F.3d 866, 879 (D.C.Cir.2010). Nothing in these Circuit decisions suggests that the court should presume the accuracy or reliability of the government’s exhibits; to the contrary, as previously noted, the Circuit has stated that before relying on any piece of evidence, the court must determine that it is sufficiently reliable and probative. Bensayah, 610 F.3d at 725 (citing Parhat, 532 F.3d at 847); cf. Al Odah v. United States, 611 F.3d 8, 14 (D.C.Cir.2010) (<HOLDING>). Drawing on these principles, this court has
holding that because the rules of evidence including the rule against hearsay do not apply to sentencing hearings the district court did not err in relying on hearsay in ordering restitution holding that otherwise hearsay evidence disclosing the basis of an expert witness opinion should be admissible if  the impeaching evidence has sufficient guarantee of reliability that the prophylactic effect of the hearsay rule is not necessary to ensure trustworthiness holding that the district court did not err in relying on hearsay evidence where the government offered reasons why its hearsay evidence had indicia of reliability and the court considered the reliability of the evidence in deciding the weight to give the hearsay evidence holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding hearsay evidence and evidence that violated the best evidence rule in deciding a summary judgment motion holding that hearsay evidence does not violate the confrontation clause if declarant is unavailable and it bears adequate indicia of reliability