by the probation officer to attribute 1,269.15 grams of crack to Woods, see J.Á. at 2329(PSR), was unreliable. The officer did not personally meet with Dotson, J.A. at 2094, but relayed information from his supervisor who did meet with Dotson. See J.A. at 2094. The probation officer also repeatedly stated that he calculated the presentence report quantities conservatively based on Dotson’s testimony. Woods points out that Dotson was arguably not always honest during his testimony, see J.A. at 626-29 (saying he did not use drugs during probation but then remembering that he did), that he could not calculate weight of drugs by looking at them, J.A. at 621-22, and that he was not sure how much a kilogram is. See J.A. at 546. Cf. United States v. Robison, 904 F.2d 365, 371-72 (6th Cir.) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied sub nom. Smoot v. United States,
holding that a drug users testimony when she admitted to guessing and felt pressured into guessing was not sufficiently rehable for calculating drug quantities holding that unknowing drug courier testimony was admissible in a complex drug importation case holding that hearsay testimony of a coconspirator alone can provide sufficiently rehable evidence of drug quantity holding prior drug deals admissible to prove knowledge of the drug trade holding that evidence of prior drug sales was sufficiently similar to the crimes charged  to be probative of the fact that the defendant was not merely an innocent driver who was involved in the drug transaction by accident