the Supreme Court commented that in making a sentencing determination, “a judge may appropriately conduct an inquiry broad in scope, largely unlimited either as to the kind of information he may consider, or the source from which it may come.” Id. at 446, 92 S.Ct. 589. It is clear, therefore, that a sentencing court has very broad discretion in the types and sources of information it may receive in developing an appropriate sentence for a criminal defendant. Fried may not have had a right to present both his statement and Anderson’s statement at the sentencing hearing. Nevertheless, it was well within the district court’s broad discretion to hear from both Fried and Anderson on an appropriate sentence. Cf. United States v. Leach, 206 Fed.Appx. 432, 435 (6th Cir.2006) (unpublished) (<HOLDING>) (internal quotation marks omitted). Rhodes
holding that district court properly allowed testimony by defendants exwife at sentencing whether or not she was accurately consid ered a victim under  3771 because that law did not alter  a district courts traditionally broad discretion to consider a wide variety of factors at sentencing holding the confrontation clause of the united states constitution does not apply at sentencing under the us sentencing guidelines manual and the procedural protections afforded a convicted defendant at sentencing are traditionally less stringent than the protections afforded a presumptively innocent defendant at trial holding that sentence is reasonable when the district court properly addresses sentencing factors of  3553a recognizing that sentencing facts are based on the evidence and testimony presented at sentencing under a preponderance of the evidence standard holding that district courts discretion is extremely broad