structure of this enterprise.” J.A. at 160 (Sent. Hr’g Tr. 2/20/03 at 32). Although it would be preferable for the district judge to reiterate these factual determinations fully at the resen-tencing hearing, we cannot say that the district judge did not make the required factual determination that Walls controlled others. Moreover, even assuming a traditional review de novo of the § 3B 1.1(a) legal issues, Walls’s argument still fails. At that 2003 sentencing hearing, the district judge found that the consp g that a § 3Bl.l(a) enhancement is warranted where a defendant was the “kingpin of the drug conspiracy” and “specific co-conspirators purchased crack cocaine from or delivered crack cocaine for the defendant”); United States v. Hernandez, 227 F.3d 686, 700 (6th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, we hold that the district court
holding defendant responsible for conspiracys entire drug quantity where defendant played managerial role in the conspiracy coordinated drug distribution and shared in conspiracys profits holding that evidence of prior drug transactions was admissible under rule 404b to show inter alia intent to enter into the drug conspiracy and knowledge of the conspiracy holding that where defendant was charged with drug conspiracy it was unnecessary for the government to prove defendants presence at the sales and hence the alibi defense was not supported by the law and no instruction was required holding that defendant was not entitled to buyerseller instruction in drug conspiracy prosecution given evidence that defendant played numerous roles in the conspiracy and that massive amounts of cocaine were involved holding that a  3blla enhancement was warranted where the defendant directed codefendants to make payments transported profits was involved in planning and organizing the conspiracy and approved drug couriers