the media. Id. at § 50.10(c). However, as the District Court correctly observed, the guidelines expressly state that they do “not create or recognize any legally enforceable right in any person.” Id. at § 50.10(n). This reservation has been upheld by several federal appellate and district courts. See In re Special Proceedings, 373 F.3d 37, 44 n. 3 (1st Cir.2004) (noting that DOJ guidelines state that they do not create legally enforceable rights); In re Grand Jury Subpoena American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., 947 F.Supp. 1314, 1322 (D.Ark.1996) (declining to quash subpoena based on failure to comply with DOJ regulations, on ground that regulations, by their own terms, confer no rights on media witnesses). See also In re Grand Jury Proceedings No. 92-4, 42 F.3d 876, 880 (4th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). The guidelines, not required by any
holding that special prosecutors failure to comply with guidelines regarding issuance of subpoenas to attorney even if applicable were not enforceable by witness through motion to quash holding that a lawyer was disqualified from representation in a criminal case when he had previously authorized the issuance of subpoenas for evidence used in the case holding that attorney general guidelines for witness protection were discretionary even though the guidelines require the ausa to arrange for the reasonable protection of a victim who is threatened they did not specify how this protection is to be provided holding rule applicable to witness holding that an administrative agency is not subject to a contempt proceeding for failure to comply with an order