judge did state, in a general comment about the bags of cocaine found throughout the Glenwood residence, that "the record ... does not indicate whether Sum-mersett dropped the bags on his way to or from the bathroom or when he was ordered to lie down on the stairwell, or whether they were recovered during the officers' search of him." There is nothing in the record currently before us, however, that supports the position that these three possibilities were the only ways in which the cocaine could have found its way to the bottom of the stairs. We do not know whether the magistrate judge's list of possible origins of the found drugs was meant to be exclusive. But if it was, that finding would be clearly erroneous. See, e.g., Krizek v. Cigna Group Ins., 345 F.3d 91, 100 (2d Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>). It is possible to read the magistrate judge’s
holding that district courts findings were not clearly erroneous where there was  sufficient evidence  that the defendants waiver of his rights was knowing and intelligent holding that the district court must make findings on the record as to the basis for its conclusion about the amount of actual loss holding that this court will only set aside district courts factual findings when they are clearly erroneous recognizing that factual findings were clearly erroneous where the record before the court was simply devoid of any basis for the district courts conclusion holding that clearly erroneous standard of review governs district courts factual findings based on state record documentary evidence and inferences from other facts