and answers from Muhammad’s interview, she did have such recollection at the time the report was prepared and that the report accurately reflected Muhammad’s statements at that time. Contrary to Muhammad’s contentions, therefore, Agent Denny’s testimony stemmed from her personal knowledge and not from the FBI 302. Based on these facts, we find no error in the admission of Agent Denny’s testimony regarding Muhammad’s post-arrest statements. Second, Muhammad had no legal basis to compel the Government to produce Agent Gandolfo’s original interview notes that were subsequently incorporated into the FBI 302. A defendant is not entitled to an agent’s notes if the agent’s report contains all that was in the original notes. See United States v. Batchelder, 581 F.2d 626, 635 (7th Cir.1978) (<HOLDING>), rev’d on other grounds, 442 U.S. 114, 99
holding that the government did not violate the jenks act by failing to produce an agents handwritten notes which were discarded after being typed into a summary holding that once government inducement is shown the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant was disposed to commit the criminal act prior to first being approached by government agents holding that an fbi agents notes were not a witness statement within the act because there was no evidence that the witness adopted or approved what was recorded holding that agents rough notes were not statements under the jencks act where notes were scattered and all the information contained in them was available to the defendant in other forms holding that district court did not err in concluding after an evidentiary hearing that the immunity agreement between defendant and the government did not extend to the charge being prosecuted