with the making of such oral statement; or (3) a statement, however taken or recorded, or a transcription thereof, if any, made by said witness to a grand jury. 18 U.S.C. § 3500(e). Although an in camera inspection is not required in every case, “a Government objection to production may require that the trial court inspect documents or hold a hearing to gather extrinsic evidence bearing on the extent to which the documents are statements producible under [§ ] 3500.” Goldberg v. United States, 425 U.S. 94, 108, 96 S.Ct. 1338, 47 L.Ed.2d 603 (1976). Before an in camera inspection is required, Price must make a “colorable claim” that the documents that she seeks are statements within the meaning of the Jencks Act. See United States v. Willis, 997 F.2d 407, 413-14 (8th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>). We conclude that the district court did not
holding that the district court did not err by refusing to allow the defendant to absent himself from the trial at which his identification would be an integral issue holding that the district court did not err in refusing to conduct an in camera inspection where the defendant failed to raise a colorable claim that the fbi 302s that he sought were statements for purposes of the jencks act holding that trial court did not err holding that a district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to give a mere inspection instruction in a firearm possession case holding that the trial court did not err in refusing to consider debtors claim of rescission as an equitable defense to the foreclosure action where that defense was not raised before the clerk