co-conspirators known to the grand jury, but these names ... were later set forth in a bill of particulars.”), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1035, 121 S.Ct. 623, 148 L.Ed.2d 533 (2000); United States v. Sims, 156 F.3d 1233, 1998 WL 415997, *2 (6th Cir.1998) (table op.) (“In response to defendant’s request for a bill of particulars, the district court ordered the government to provide defendant with the names of the known, unindicted co-conspirators alluded to in the indictment.”); United States v. Newton, 2002 WL 122911, *2 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 30, 2002) (“It is beyond dispute that this Court has the authority, in its discretion, to order the government to disclose the identities of known unin-dicted co-conspirators. See, e.g., United States v. Nachamie, 91 F.Supp.2d 565, 572 [ (S.D.N.Y.2000) ] (<HOLDING>); United States v. Gotti, 784 F.Supp. 1017,
holding that the standard of review for the denial of rule 11 sanctions is governed by the law of the regional circuit recognizing of course the suspension of the imposition of sentence and the grant of probation recognizing that no federal circuit has addressed the issue holding that the standard of review for the denial of a motion for reconsideration is governed by the law of the regional circuit recognizing that the second circuit has affirmed both the grant and the denial of requests for disclosure of the names of unindicted coconspirators