during the sentencing hearing. United States v. Polar, 369 F.3d 1248, 1255 (11th Cir.2004). Furthermore, the Guidelines provide that, in determining any sentene-ing-related factual dispute, “the court may consider relevant information without regard to its admissibility under the rules of evidence applicable at trial, provided that the information has sufficient indicia of reliability to support its probable accuracy.” U.S.S.G. § 6A1.3(a); see also United States v. Baker, 432 F.3d 1189, 1254 n. 68 (11th Cir.2005) (concluding that, post-Booker, a sentencing court may still rely on “reliable hearsay”). We will not disturb the district judge’s credibility finding unless a witness’s testimony is unbelievable on its face. See United States v. Calderon, 127 F.3d 1314, 1325 (11th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>) (internal quotation marks omitted). Moreover,
holding as a matter of law that the plaintiff could not recover for libel to his person  for the reason that the articles referred to no person who could possibly be identified as him holding that it is not holding that trial court erred in prohibiting discovery or testimony from a witness it deemed an expert when appellant merely sought to discover facts that were observed by the witness 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