of such testimony, but neither of these uses violates any immunity that Daniels contends she had. See Bartel, 19 F.3d at 1113 (noting that Bartel’s contention that his compelled grand jury testimony might have been considered by the grand jurors that issued his indictment as corroboration for other evidence lacked merit because the government satisfied its burden of proving that the evidence presented to the grand jury was derived from legitimate, independent sources). We therefore conclude that the district court’s determination that the government established independent sources for the search warrant affidavit and the indictment was not clearly erroneous. C. The district court did not err in refusing to suppress the evidence obtained at Gould’s residence based 0 (9th Cir.1986) (<HOLDING>). Congress has provided civil and criminal
holding that a violation of  6103 does not require the application of the exclusionary rule holding that the appropriate remedy for a public trial violation was a new suppression hearing not a new trial because the remedy should be appropriate to the violation holding that suppression of the evidence or dismissal of an indictment are not required to remedy a violation of  6103 holding suppression is not a remedy for violation of vienna convention under federal law holding that the fourth amendment remedy sought is suppression