could not rely upon such hearsay statements absent some minimal indicia of reliability. See United States v. Martinez, 413 F.3d 239, 244 (2d Cir. 2005). The argument fails because the requisite minimal indicia of reliability were provided by the specificity of the statements, the fact that those statements were sworn under penalty of perjury, and, more generally, by the evidence of Kinney’s extensive embezzlement throughout the accounts of the Border Lodge Credit Union. See United States v. Ibanez, 924 F.2d 427, 429-30 (2d Cir. 1991) (observing that, where “sufficient indicia of reliability” are required to corroborate information presented at sentencing, affidavits “[may] themselves” be sufficient' to resolve disputes); United States v. Schwamborn, 542 Fed.Appx. 87, 88 (2d Cir. 2013) (<HOLDING>). Although Kinney argues that, insofar as
holding that where defendant failed to object to the procedure utilized by the court in determining the amount of restitution at sentencing his challenge on appeal was unpreserved for appellate review holding that trial court did not err 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 under ibanez district court did not plainly err in relying on sworn affidavits alone for determining amount of claimants restitution holding that the district court did not err in determining that inadvertent disclosure did not result in waiver