participants.” § 3B1.1, comment, (n.2). Tinh argues that he was nothing more than an “errand boy” for his brother John. The record shows, however, that John described Tinh as his “main conduit” for distributing MDMA. Tinh leased the apartment from which the brothers distributed drugs and from which Billy Tran obtained the MDMA that he sold to a cooperating source on June 11, 2002. The PSR shows that Tran told federal agents that he dealt MDMA for Tinh, from whom he obtained his supply. Tinh argues that Tran’s statements are unreliable because Tran later said that he was working for John Hoang. The district court essentially made a credibility determination in choosing to believe Tran’s statement to the agents about Tinh. See United States v. Shipley, 963 F.2d 56, 59 (5th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>). Furthermore, it is certainly plausible that
holding that district courts decision regarding defendants minor role status was not clearly erroneous holding role enhancement was not clearly erroneous where district court made credibility decision to believe codefendants statements holding that pretext is subject to the clearly erroneous standard holding that when the testimony relating each of the statements by codefendants was admissible against at least one of the codefendants the statements were not rendered inadmissible because each statement would be hearsay as to the other two defendants holding district court decision to exclude survey for failure to conduct it under actual marketing conditions not clearly  erroneous