reveal his drug source. This was sufficient to permit the district court to find that Arnold failed to make a preponderance showing that he had disclosed “all he knows concerning both his involvement and that of any co-conspirators.” United States v. Smith, 174 F.3d 52, 56 (2d Cir.1999) (internal quotation marks omitted); see United States v. Conde, 178 F.3d 616, 622 (2d Cir.1999) (reiterating that defendant was properly denied safety-valve reduction where he failed to provide name of drug source). Insofar as Arnold claimed he did not possess the information sought by prosecutors, the district court was not bound to accept his self-serving professions of ignorance, particularly after hearing the trial evidence. See generally United States v. Gambino, 106 F.3d 1105, 1110 (2d Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). Indeed, the district court’s skepticism would
holding sentencing court not bound to accept defendants selfserving characterizations of role in offense holding that court may not accept claims of fraud based on speculation holding that appellate courts may choose to accept or reject concessions of counsel and are not bound by them holding that district court need not accept the governments recommendation of a minor role reduction holding that a reduction for minor role in an offense cannot be awarded when the larger offense was not taken into account in setting the base level