2034, 173 L.Ed.2d 1120 (2009). Even in his presentation of this excited-utterance rationale on appeal, Mr. Pursley has been unable to specify the content of Mr. Youngblood’s expected testimony on the issue. See Hernandez-Urista, 9 F.3d at 84 (affirming denial because defendant “failed to specify the content of the expected testimony”); Bloomgren, 814 F.2d at 585 (affirming denial in part because defendant failed to “reveal with specificity the substance of each of the individual witnesses’ testimony”). More importantly, Mr. Pursley cross-examined Mr. Cluff, Mr. Floyd, and Mr. Moltzan and, therefore, had the opportunity to ask about Mr. Cluffs physical and mental state after the assault. Thus, the testimony of Mr. Youngblood, who moved Mr. Cluff to a new cell a few minutes p h Cir.1975) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Nivica, 887 F.2d 1110, 1118
holding that a rule 17b application filed on last day of governments case lacked timeliness and supported district courts limitation on subpoena requests recognizing district court application of the same rule holding district court was without authority to dismiss the case on rule 2151 grounds when an application had been filed and a continuance ordered holding that lack of timeliness of a rule 17b application supported the district courts decision to deny twentythree of twentysix requested subpoenas holding that the record supported the district courts award of damages