to Mr. Cluff s conversation with Mr. Floyd, would have been cumulative of this prior testimony. See Hernandez-Urista, 9 F.3d at 84 (determining that the denial of a request for a subpoena is supported when witness testimony is merely cumulative); United States v. Mayes, 917 F.2d 457, 462 (10th Cir.1990) (same). As a final point, we note that the timing of Mr. Pursley’s Rule 17(b) request supports the propriety of its denial. Although Mr. Pursley filed his motion on the first day of trial, he never attempted to make a nonconclusory showing of necessity until the government rested. Mr. Pursley provided no justification for failing to act sooner. Granting Mr. Pursley even partial relief at that point had the potential to delay the completion of the trial. See Bloomgren, 814 F.2d at 585 (<HOLDING>); United States v. Stoker, 522 F.2d 576, 579
holding that lack of timeliness of a rule 17b application supported the district courts decision to deny twentythree of twentysix requested subpoenas holding that timeliness of filing of notice of appeal is a jurisdictional issue holding costs of service of subpoenas recoverable recognizing district court application of the same rule holding that a rule 17b application filed on last day of governments case lacked timeliness and supported district courts limitation on subpoena requests