further argues that the information in the affidavit was contradictory insofar as CS-2 claimed to have processed cocaine for Grooms in the recent past despite the fact that Gunter (Grooms’s alleged supplier) was incarcerated at that time. Grooms’s arguments, however, ignore the portions of the affidavit in which Special Agent Chisdock’s undercover visits to the Park Entrance Grocery were discussed in detail. This corroborating evidence from Chisdock, which buttressed the information from the confidential informants, was alone sufficient to support a finding of probable cause. See United States v. Jackson, 470 F.3d 299, 307 (6th Cir.2006) (explaining that corroborating information from a law-enforcement officer may support a finding of probable cause even if the aff 481 (6th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we reject Grooms’s arguments
holding that a 23month gap was insufficient to show staleness holding that the more than three month gap between the plaintiffs eeoc complaint and the allegedly adverse action was insufficient to show causation holding that a threeyear gap was insufficient to demonstrate staleness where the criminal activity was ongoing holding that a threeyear gap between the protected activity and the adverse employment action was insufficient to support an inference of causation holding that a sixmonth gap between the protected activity and the employees termination was insufficient to infer that the protected activity was a contributing factor