Cluster 398317

See also Anthony v. United States, 667 F.2d 870, 880 (10th Cir. 1981) (“A defendant may not use discovery as a fishing expedition.”). 23 2).)5 However, Covil has provided no support for the notion that such agreement conclusively determines the extent to which the Zurich Settlement limits Covil’s potential recovery from USF&G.

See Anthony v. United States, 667 F.2d at 882 (“[I]f we were to require the prosecution to disclose the contents of the tapes ..., we would cast the prosecution in the role of a party to a crime.”). 21 .

Still, however, probable cause could arise from “practical considerations of everyday 7 Appellate Case: 24-1201 Document: 84-1 Date Filed: 03/12/2026 Page: 70 life.” United States v. Biglow, 562 F.3d 1272, 1280 (10th Cir. 2009) (quoting Anthony v. United States, 667 F.2d 870, 874 (10th Cir. 1981)).

Still, however, probable cause could arise from “practical considerations of everyday 7 Appellate Case: 24-1201 Document: 79 Date Filed: 02/24/2026 Page: 69 life.” United States v. Biglow, 562 F.3d 1272, 1280 (10th Cir. 2009) (quoting Anthony v. United States, 667 F.2d 870, 874 (10th Cir. 1981)).

Because B&B’s proposed discovery requests seek general information relating to McKee’s aircraft transactions and all related documents, B&B’s motion “seems almost like an attempt to ‘use discovery as a fishing expedition’ rather than to obtain needed documents . . . .” Breakthrough Mgmt., 629 F.3d at 1190 (quoting Anthony v. United States, 667 F.2d 870, 880 (10th Cir. 1981)); see also Grynberg, 490 F. App’x at 105 (same). “‘Given the very low probability that the lack of [ju…

Anthony v. United States, 667 F.2d 870, 875 (10th Cir. 1981).

Anthony v. United States, 667 F.2d 870, 880 (10th Cir. 1981); Greene, 41 F.R.D. at 13-15 .

A party “may not use discovery as a fishing expedition.” Anthony v. United States, 667 F.2d 870, 880 (10th Cir. 1981).

Anthony v. United States, 667 F.2d 870, 880 (10th Cir. 1981).

A party “may not use discovery as a fishing expedition.” Anthony v. United States, 667 F.2d 870, 880 (10th Cir. 1981).

App. P. 10(e)) (internal alterations omitted)); id. (“This court will not consider material outside the record before the district court.”); Anthony v. United States, 667 F.2d 870, 875 (10th Cir. 1981) (finding Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 10(e) “allows a party to supplement the record on appeal,” but “does not grant a license to build a new record”). 5 01, 2514 (Jan. 16, 2015) (to be codified at 50 C.F.R. pt. 17).

However, it does not grant a license to build a new record.” Anthony v. United States, 667 F.2d 870, 875 (10th Cir. 1981).

See, e.g., Rowland, 145 F.3d at 1204 ; United States v. Medlin, 798 F.2d 407, 409 (10th Cir.1986); Anthony v. United States, 667 F.2d 870, 872-73 (10th Cir.1981). .

Cir. 1980); see, e.g., United States v. Antar, 38 F.3d 1348, 1350 (3d Cir. 1994); In re Subpoena to Testify Before Grand Jury Directed to Custodian of Records, 864 F.2d 1559, 1561 (11th Cir. 1989); Doe v. United States, 666 F.2d 43, 45 (4th Cir. 1981); Anthony v. United States, 667 F.2d 870, 872-73 (10th Cir. 1981); In re Smith, 656 F.2d 1101, 1102-05, 1107 (5th Cir. 1981); United States v. Briggs, 514 F.2d 794, 796, 799 (5th Cir. 1975).

In particular, “[f]ederal courts have frequently permitted third parties to assert their interests in preventing disclosure of material sought in criminal proceedings or in preventing further access to materials already so disclosed.” United States v. Hubbard, 650 F.2d 293 , 311 n. 67 (D.C.Cir.1980); see, e.g., United States v. Antar, 38 F.3d 1348, 1350 (3d Cir.1994); In re Subpoena to Testify Before Grand Jury Directed to Custodian of Records, 864 F.2d 1559, 1561 (11th Cir.…

See United States v. Antar, 38 F.3d 1348,1355-56 (3d Cir. 1994) (permitting the press to appeal a district court order sealing a voir dire transcript); In re Subpoena to Testify Before Grand Jury Directed to Custodian of Records, 864 F.2d 1559, 1561 (11th Cir. 1989) (allowing the press to appeal the scope of a closure order); Anthony v. United States, 667 F.2d 870, 878 (10th Cir. 1982) (allowing 4 Vicky also cites a letter from Senator Jon Kyl to the U.S. Justice Department,…

See United States v. Antar, 38 F.3d 1348,1355-56 (3d Cir. 1994) (permitting the press to appeal a district court order sealing a voir dire transcript); In re Subpoena to Testify Before Grand Jury Directed to Custodian of Records, 864 F.2d 1559, 1561 (11th Cir. 1989) (allowing the press to appeal the scope of a closure order); Anthony v. United States, 667 F.2d 870, 878 (10th Cir. 1982) (allowing 4 Vicky also cites a letter from Senator Jon Kyl to the U.S. Justice Department,…

Grp., Inc., 629 F.3d at 1190 (quoting Anthony v. United States, 667 F.2d 870, 880 (10th Cir.1981)).

Anthony v. United States, 667 F.2d 870, 880 (10th Cir.1981).

Nor do they qualify as appeal-able interlocutory orders, because they had no “final or irreparable effect on the rights of the parties.” Anthony v. United States, 667 F.2d 870, 878 (10th Cir.1981) (quoting Cohen v. Beneficial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545 , 69 S.Ct. 1221 , 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949)).

See, e.g., Tisdale, 248 F.3d at 971 (concluding a magistrate judge could infer a nexus existed to search a suspect’s car where a dead body lay adjacent to the vehicle and an unidentified party had opened the trunk earlier in the day); Hargus, 128 F.3d at 1362 (inferring a nexus to a suspect’s residence based on the small scale of his business, the ongoing nature of the conspiracy at issue, and the fact that he used his home telephone to arrange the sale of stolen goods); Rey…

We also find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s decision foreclosing plaintiffs attempt to “use discovery as a fishing expedition,” Anthony v. United States, 667 F.2d 870, 880 (10th Cir. *321 1981), in the hope that the requested documents would reveal some wrongdoing by defendants.

Pursuant to Rule 10(e)(1) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, a party may modify the record if there is a question as to “whether the record truly discloses what occurred in the district court.” This rule does not, however, “grant a license to build a new record.” Anthony v. United States, 667 F.2d 870, 875 (10th Cir.1981).

W e recognize that plaintiffs had hoped discovery would help them identify one or more prison employees they could sue, but under these circumstances where the letters could have been disseminated by any number of people, including inmates, we find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s decision foreclosing plaintiffs’ attempt to “use discovery as a fishing expedition,” Anthony v. United States, 667 F.2d 870, 880 (10th Cir. 1981).

We recognize that plaintiffs had hoped discovery would help them identify one or more prison employees they could sue, but under these circumstances where the letters could have been disseminated by any number of people, including inmates, we find no abuse of discretion' in the district court’s decision foreclosing plaintiffs’ attempt to “use discovery as a fishing expedition,” Anthony v. United States, 667 F.2d 870, 880 (10th Cir.1981).

We reject this argument because a party “may not use discovery as a fishing expedition.” Anthony v. United States, 667 F.2d 870, 880 (10th Cir.1981).

In Anthony v. United States, 667 F.2d 870, 875 (10th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 457 U.S. 1133 , 102 S.Ct. 2959 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1350 (1982), we stated Rule 10(e) “allows a party to supplement the record on appeal” but “does not grant a license to build a new record.” Id. (citing cases).

Other than a claim of newly discovered evidence, "a defendant may not add new arguments in support of a motion for new trial by including them in an amendment filed after the time under Rule 33 has expired." 9 United States v. Custodio, 141 F.3d 965, 966 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 119 S. Ct. 243 (1998); Anthony v. United States, 667 F.2d 870, 875-76 (10th Cir. 1981).

An appellate court is to review what happened in the court below; an appeal does not present a party with “a license to build a new record.” Anthony v. United States, 667 F.2d 870, 875 (10th Cir.1981).

Although the court granted permission to supplement the record in order to address issues already raised, this did not give Mr. Abello "license to build a new record," Anthony v. United States, 667 F.2d 870, 875 (10th Cir.1981), by adding new issues. 9 Third, Mr. Abello's recusal motion made no allegation of actual bias or impropriety on the part of Judge Brett.

Although the court granted permission to supplement the record in order to address issues already raised, this did not give Mr. Abello “license to build a new record,” Anthony v. United States, 667 F.2d 870, 875 (10th Cir. 1981), by adding new issues.

Anthony v. United States, 667 F.2d 870, 874 (10th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 457 U.S. 1133 , 102 S.Ct. 2959 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1350 (1982).

See, e.g., Wuliger, 981 F.2d at 1506 ; Anthony v. United States, 667 F.2d 870, 879 (10th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 457 U.S. 1133 , 102 S.Ct. 2959 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1350 (1982).

Corp. v. Adams, 570 F.2d 899, 901 (10th Cir.1978) (relying on Covey and reversing order quashing subpoena for second deposition of a nonparty); Anthony v. United States, 667 F.2d 870, 878 (10th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 457 U.S. 1133 , 102 S.Ct. 2959 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1350 (1982) (allowing appeal by nonparty participant in illegally recorded telephone conversations of trial court order allowing criminal defendant discovery of tapes for use in preparing his motion for new trial). 2…

Anthony v. United States, 667 F.2d 870, 879 (10th Cir.1981).

Holmberg v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 901 F.2d 1387 , 1392 n. 4 (7th Cir.1990); Anthony v. United States, 667 F.2d 870, 875 (10th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 457 U.S. 1133 , 102 S.Ct. 2959 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1350 (1982).

See United States v. Hall, 854 F.2d 1269 (11th Cir.1988); Anthony v. United States, 667 F.2d 870, 875-76 (10th Cir.1981); United States v. Newman, 456 F.2d 668, 670-71 (3d Cir.1972).

Wilkins v. United States, 465 U.S. 1081 , 104 S.Ct. 1447 , 79 L.Ed.2d 766 (1984); United States v. Page, 661 F.2d 1080, 1082 (5th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 1018 , 102 S.Ct. 1713 , 72 L.Ed.2d 136 (1982); Anthony v. United States, 667 F.2d 870, 875 (10th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 457 U.S. 1133 , 102 S.Ct. 2959 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1350 (1982).

Wilkins v. United States, 465 U.S. 1081 , 104 S.Ct. 1447 , 79 L.Ed.2d 766 (1984); United States v. Page, 661 F.2d 1080, 1082 (5th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 1018 , 102 S.Ct. 1713 , 72 L.Ed.2d 136 (1982); Anthony v. United States, 667 F.2d 870, 875 (10th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 457 U.S. 1133 , 102 S.Ct. 2959 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1350 (1982). 25 Even if the supplemental opinion was proper under Rule 10(e), it remains clear to this Court that the crux of the later opinion was s…

U.S. v. Page, 661 F.2d 1080, 1082 (5th Cir.1981); Anthony v. U.S., 667 F.2d 870, 875 (10th Cir.1981).

While the court on appeal has discretionary authority to supplement the record with material not reviewed by the district court, Dickerson v. State of Alabama, 667 F.2d 1364, 1367 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 878 (1982); Turk v. United States, 429 F.2d 1327, 1329 (8th Cir. 1970), most courts have disapproved of adding new material to the record, Anthony v. United States, 667 F.2d 870, 875 (10th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 457 U.S. 1133 (1982); United States v. Walker, 6…

Anthony v. United States, 667 F.2d 870, 874 (10th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 457 U.S. 1133 , 102 S.Ct. 2959 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1350 (1982); United States v. Lockett, 674 F.2d 843, 846 (11th Cir.1982); United States v. Maestas, 546 F.2d 1177, 1180 (5th Cir.1977); United States v. Pheaster, 544 F.2d 353, 373 (9th Cir.1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1099 , 97 S.Ct. 1118 , 51 L.Ed.2d 546 (1977).

State v. Purcell, Utah, 586 P.2d 441, 443 (1978); United States v. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102, 108-09 , 85 S.Ct. 741, 745-746 , 13 *720 L.Ed.2d 684 (1965); Anthony v. United States, 667 F.2d 870, 874-75 (10th Cir.1981). 3.

Anthony v. United States, 667 F.2d 870, 874 (10th Cir.1981).

App. P. 10(a); see Anthony v. United States, 667 F.2d 870, 875 (10th Cir. 1981) (stating that we are confined to the record on appeal and powerless to build a new record).

See United States v. Biglow , 562 F.3d at 1280 ("[M]agistrate judges may draw their own reasonable conclusions, based on the Government's affidavit and the 'practical considerations of everyday life,' as to the likelihood that certain evidence will be found at a particular place." (quoting Anthony v. United States , 667 F.2d 870 , 874 (10th Cir. 1981) ); United States v. Reyes , 798 F.2d 380 , 382 (10th Cir. 1986) ("It is reasonable to assume that certain types of evidence w…

See Anthony v. United States, 667 F.2d 870, 879 (10th Cir.1982).

See Anthony v. United States, 667 F.2d 870, 875 (10th Cir.1981); see also United States v. Gonzalez, 182 F.3d 933 , 1999 WL 381114 (10th Cir.1999) (table case) (suppression hearing should not be reopened to consider testimony of cab driver who testified at trial when he was available to testify at suppression hearing); United States v. Childress, 721 F.2d 1148, 1151 (8th Cir.1982) (district court properly denied motion to reopen suppression hearing where defendant waived his…

See Anthony v. United States , 667 F.2d 870, 875 (10th Cir. 1981).

See Anthony v. United States, 667 F.2d 870, 874 (10th Cir. 1981).