of the Erne. We found that even with access to these informants, the government had been able to meet the necessity requirement: [T]he Mexican Mafia is a broad-based organization with several hundred members and an unknown number of associates. Several informants — including former members of the Mexican Mafia ... — could not possibly reveal the full nature and extent of the enterprise and its countless, and at times disjointed, criminal tentacles. Id. (citations omitted). Our holding in Shryock is controlling here and defeats Appellants’ arguments regarding the informants. See also Canales Gomez, 358 F.3d at 1226 (“The government need not show that informants would be useless in order to secure a court-authorized wiretap.”); United States v. McGuire, 307 F.3d 1192, 1197 (9th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). Appellants also argue that the fact that the
holding that the government had established necessity for wiretaps despite its use of three cooperating witnesses because those witnesses were able to give agents only limited information not including the names of all members of the conspiracy holding that criminal defendants are entitled to obtain for impeachment purposes statements made by government witnesses to government agents that relate to the subject matter of the witnesses direct testimony holding that material for witnesses need not be produced to defendant where the witnesses were not called as government witnesses at trial holding that where movant alleged the names of uncalled witnesses and them anticipated testimony which would have been relevant mitigation evidence in the penalty phase but did not allege that trial counsel knew of the witnesses or that the witnesses were available to testify at trial the movant was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his postconviction relief motion because he did not allege facts sufficient to satisfy the standard applicable to his claim holding that the prosecutor is not required to provide the defense with the names of rebuttal witnesses because until the defense case has been presented the state cannot know of witnesses needed for rebuttal