numerous people named "Chiguiro" who were assisting the 16th Front but that would not have undermined the testimony by the witnesses at trial who knew the defendant under circumstances that left little room for doubt about the reliability of their identifications of him as the person they observed engaging in conspiratorial acts. These witnesses did not have fleeting glimpses of the defendant, they worked with him, ate meals with him, and even lived with him. Furthermore, the witnesses offered consistent testimony to the extent that many of the witnesses described similar contexts in which they observed the defendant: he typically was arriving or departing by vehicle or speedboat, with weapons or cocaine, in the same geographical region of Colombia, and he met or conversed with the same threeinvolvement in supervising its transport, and evidence that a shipment was in fact going to the United States. Martinez, 476 F.3d at 968. On the other hand, knowledge that cocaine was being imported into the United States has been found insufficiently established when the defendant was not involved in negotiations or meetings relating to the sale of cocaine, "came into the picture only at the end" to serve a minor role as a guide for a pilot picking cocaine up in Colombia and taking it to Panama, and there was no evidence that the defendant had been told that the cocaine was destined for the United States. United States v. Londono-Villa, 930 F.2d 994, 1001 (2d Cir.1991) (Kearse, J.).
In this case, the Court is persuaded that there was