lose the identity of its witnesses before trial. However, the basis for such grants of authority now seems defunct. For instance, in United States v. Armstrong, the Ninth Circuit recognized no authority exists in the federal rules for requiring the government to disclose the names of its witnesses. 74 Still,

disclosure of witness names before trial appears inconsistent with the federal rules. And even if the Ninth Circuit's approach was valid at the time Armstrong was decided, such an approach is no longer valid in light of the CVRA. Rule 57(b) only provides a basis for court authority in the absence of control

r. 2020) 26 Standefer v. United States, 447 U.S. 10 (1980) 13 United States v. Alameh, 341 F.3d 167 (2d Cir. 2003) 29, 30, 31 United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, (1996) passim United States v. Avellino, 136 F.3d 249 (2d Cir. 1998) 19, 25 United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985) 7 Unite

that the requested evidence is material." Rigas, 258 F. Supp. 2d at 307 (internal citation omitted). As the Supreme Court held in United States v. Armstrong, while Rule 16 authorizes 10 EFTA00027321 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT Document 35 Filed 04/24/20 Page 16 of 34 defendants to exami

. 2020) 26 Standefer v. United States, 447 U.S. 10 (1980) 13 United States v. Alamelz, 341 F.3d 167 (2d Cir. 2003) 29, 30, 31 United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, (1996) passim United States v. Avellino, 136 F.3d 249 (2d Cir. 1998) 19, 25 United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985) 7 Unite

t sympathy, compassion, or compromise from the jury. The records Thomas seeks are no more discoverable than the nullification evidence precluded in Armstrong and its progeny. See Armstrong, 517 U.S. at 462- 63 (defendant not entitled to discovery on race of other narcotics defendants to aid in selective p

246 150 Cong. Rec. $10,911 (daily ed. Oct. 9, 2004) (statement of Sen. Kyl) (emphases added). 247 Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67, 80 (1972) (quoting Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 552 (1965)). 248 150 Cong. Rec. $4264 (daily ed. Apr. 22, 2004) (statement of Sen. Kyl) (emphasis added). 249 See 18 U.S.C.

y); charitable bequest of non-qualified stock options taxable to charity, not estate (PLR 20012076) 03/24/00 Donees subject to transferee liability (Armstrong); converting NIM-CRUTs to CRUTs 2000-03 (Notice 99-31); discharge of GRAT liability (TAMs 200010010 and 20001 1005) 02/28/00 Corporate tax refunds a

Federation of New York PRINT | MAP | TWEET Digital Media and Marketing and Communications Dinner Cocktails and program. Business attire. Honoring Tim Armstrong, Jack Haber. The Pierre Hotel. New York. (212) 836-1853. Event address: 2 East 61st St., New York. Event web address: ujafedny.org. Tags: Dinner Asso

deration of New York PRINT | MAP | TWEET Digital Media and Marketing and Communications Dinner Cocktails and program. Business attire. Honoring Tim Armstrong, Jack Haber. The Pierre Hotel. New York. (212) 836-1853. Event address: 2 East 61st St., New York. Event web address: ujafedny.org. Tags: Dinner As

Alun✓ones, Jeremy & Deborah -Lulu Arango, Maile *Redactions for personal contact information Arellano, Victor Arion Joaquin .:. . . ...... Armstrong, Arthur & --- ' I • I I • . ra Hicks rl • • '.I • t WIiiiam Saker Danny !. . l I, ~ " ~ .!. II *Redactions for personal contact i

lves, but rather an independent assertion that charges were brought for reasons that were improper or constitutionally invalid. See United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 463 (1996). Indeed, the defendant will be unable to make any kind of showing of the conspiracy theory that there was activity incons

selective prosecution defense, he has not met the "rigorous" standard that applies for obtaining discovery in aid of such a claim. United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 468 (1996). "[A] defendant who seeks discovery on a claim of selective prosecution must show some evidence of both discriminatory ef

de by an attorney for the government or other government agent in connection with investigating or prosecuting the case); see also United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. at 463 (1996) ("[U]nder Rule 16(a)(2), [a defendant] may not examine Government work product in connection with his case."). Fourth Reque

esident’s delegates to help him discharge his constitutional responsibility to ‘take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.’” United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 464 (1996) (quoting U.S. Const. art. II, § 3). Unless based on an impermissible standard such as race, religion, or other arbitrary

97 U.S. 358, 364 (1970) (holding that proof beyond a reasonable doubt is constitutionally required under the Due Process Clause). ° United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 456-71 (1996) (examining selective prosecution claim based on racial bias); see also Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 813 (1996)

r. *Doreen Lorenzo *— President, Frog Design. *Bob **Luskin*-- Partner and Co-Chair of Litigation Dept, Patton Boggs.Attorney to Karl Rove and Lance Armstrong. Fmr Chief Counsel to the Organized Crime & Racketeering Section of DOJ . *Jorn Lyseggen*— CEO of Meltwater. *John Maeda*— President, Rhode Island