the conversations as they occurred. Further, this officer testified that after speaking with Diana Buchanan during her arrest, he was “convinced” that the voice on the tape was Diana Buchanan’s. Although the district court did not elicit testimony as to all the Biggins elements, the officer sponsoring the recording gave adequate testimony to support the recording’s reliability. All the voices were identified, and there was no intimation that the tape had been altered. Further, the testifying officer explained how the recording was made, and testified as to its accuracy. Accordingly, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion in admitting the tape as an accurate reproduction of relevant conversations. See United States v. Lance, 853 F.2d 1177, 1181-82 (5th Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>). C Diana Buchanan next argues that the
holding that the  2d11b1 enhancement was proper where a firearm and drugrelated items were found in the defendants residence where he had also engaged in conspiratorial conversations holding recordings properly authenticated where law enforcement agents who participated in the taped conversations testified that according to their memories the audio and video tapes contained accurate recordings of the conversations that occurred holding that foreign bank documents found inside a persons home were properly authenticated holding that the plaintiffs fourteenth amendment substantive due process claim was foreclosed because the fourth amendment provided protection for their claim that law enforcement officers participated in an unlawful seizure of their mobile home holding that government met its burden with evidence that agents found a firearm and other drugrelated items in the defendants house where defendant engaged in conspiratorial conversations