Walker, Coversup and Renz. Because the defendants have alleged only that the district court improperly applied the Guidelines, and did not raise any general reasonableness challenges after Booker, we do not reach the second step of the analysis, which would otherwise require a determination of whether the defendants’ sentences are reasonable in light of § 3553(a). See United, States v. Mathijssen, 406 F.3d 496, 498 (8th Cir.2005). 1 A. Walker contends that the procedure employed by the district court in determining the quantity of methamphetamine attributable to her for the purpose of calculating her base offense level was erroneous and violated her due process rights. She also contends that the district court erred in refusing to grant her a minor participant dow 202-03 (9th Cir.1982) (<HOLDING>). Defense counsel kept inquiring about the same
holding that doctrine does not violate due process holding that although not required to do so trial court had discretion to strike defendants affidavit when he refused to submit to crossexamination holding that sentencing court did not violate defendants due process rights when it reasonably refused to recall a witness for crossexamination holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the defendant an opportunity to recall a witness who had already testified and been subject to crossexamination holding due process required an opportunity for crossexamination when the decision depended on the credibility of individual witness testimony