Brady claims fail where the claimant fails specifically to identify the “potential undisclosed Brady materials” or “to set forth any specific facts indicating that such evidence was withheld. Conclusory or speculative allegations that the Government failed to disclose evidence are insufficient to support a Brady violation.” Verdel v. Cunningham, No. 07-CV-0837, 2008 WL 2755833, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. July 14, 2008); see also Visich v. Walsh, No. 10-CV-4160, 2013 WL 3388953, at *16 (S.D.N.Y. July 3, 2013) (‘Without more, [petitioner's unsupported assertion that the prosecution failed to disclose exculpatory or impeaching information at the time of trial ... is insufficient to warrant habeas relief.”); Castillo v. United States, No. 07-CV-2976, 2010 WL 3912788, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 8, 2010) (<HOLDING>); Skinner v. Duncan, No. 01-CV-6656, 2003 WL
holding unobjectedto conclusory testimony insufficient to support judgment holding a broad claim with no factual support was insufficient to satisfy rule 9b holding that vague conclusory statements are insufficient holding that a partys single conclusory sentence in his brief on appeal regarding a claim of error was tantamount to a waiver of that claim holding that where petitioner did not point to any specific evidence that was withheld his broad conclusory claims  were insufficient to support his claim of a constitutional violation