testimony of several alleged bookmakers and gamblers whose names were mentioned in recorded conversations involving the defendants. Corrado surmises that the government found and subpoenaed these alleged bookmakers and gamblers, and that their testimony befox-e the grand jury was favorable to the defendants. None of these alleged bookmakers were called to testify at trial. The district court denied Corrado’s motion for disclosure on the ground that Corrado was not charged in the indictment with extorting any of these alleged bookmakers and, therefore, even if their grand jury testimony indicated no illegal behavior on Corrado’s part, it was not exculpatory as to the extortion charges that were in the indictment. We agree. See United States v. Mullins, 22 F.3d 1365, 1372 (6th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, CoiTado has made no showing that he
holding that material favorable to the accused must be either evidence which serves to impeach a government witness credibility or evidence which is directly exculpatory of the defendant  emphasis added holding that the prosecution must disclose evidence favorable to the accused that is material either to guilt or to punishment holding that suppression by government of evidence favorable to accused upon request violates due process when evidence is material to guilt holding that suppression by prosecutor of evidence favorable to an accused violates due process where evidence is material to either guilt or punishment holding that suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment