while some agents might have labeled calls slightly differently than others, he did not recall any disagreement between agents about whether or not a call should be labeled pertinent. Thus, we conclude that the labeling of calls as pertinent was not arbitrary. Moreover, the fact that only 203 of 4,561 intercepted calls were minimized does not render the DEA’s minimization efforts inadequate. While the record does not indi cate how many of the intercepted calls the DEA labeled pertinent, Defendants do not assert that the DEA intercepted, but failed to minimize, any significant number of non-pertinent calls. Thus, Defendants have not provided a basis for concluding that the DEA’s minimization efforts were unreasonable. Cf. United States v. Bennett, 219 F.3d 1117, 1123-24 (9th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>); Torres, 908 F.2d at 1423 (holding that
holding that interception was properly minimized where appellants contended that government failed to minimize only 267 of 7322 intercepted calls holding error for chancellor to find that the appellants had tortiously interfered with the appellees business relationships where record failed to disclose a single client who was influenced by the appellants to terminate the appellees services due to the appellants intervention holding that the appellants claim that the circuit court failed to make specific findings of fact relating to issues raised at an evidentiary hearing on the appellants postconviction petition was not preserved for review because the appellant did not raise the issue in the circuit court holding in a legal malpractice case where defendants allegedly failed to disclose a conflict of interest that incidental events such as the correspondence and calls plaintiff relies on that have only some tangential connection with the dispute in litigation were not enough to support venue where the plaintiff resided holding the states comment that the only witness gave uncontradicted and uncontroverted testimony establishing appellants guilt was an impermissible comment on appellants right to remain silent where appellant was the only individual capable of refuting the witnesss testimony