to the grand jury testimony and debriefing statements considered by the court, or that he had no opportunity to explain or rebut the information. Moreover, the sentencing guidelines permit the district court to estimate the drug quantity when there has been no seizure of drugs or when the amount seized does not reflect the scale of the offense. USSG § 2D1.1, cmt. n. 12. Linton also challenges the district court’s use of his co-defendants’ presentence reports. As previously mentioned, the sentencing court may not rely on factual information from sources not disclosed to the defendant. Helton, 975 F.2d at 434. To do so would deprive the defendant of his opportunity to explain and rebut any claimed errors in the information. See also United States v. Smith, 13 F.3d 860, 867 (5th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). However, in this case, the district court did
holding that where defendant did not offer any rebuttal evidence to refute presentence report district court  was free to adopt facts in psi without further inquiry holding that court may satisfy factual basis requirement by examining presentence report holding that a defendants objection to facts in the presentence report on the basis that they went beyond any prior jury verdict or guilty plea is sufficient to prevent those facts from being relied upon in sentencing holding that sentencing court may not adopt facts from codefendants presentence report that was not disclosed to defendant holding it insufficient when the sentencing judge only questioned defendant on certain aspects of the presentence report