check and “failing to reverse or disclose this transfer.” During cross-examination of a government witness, Senffner asked whether the funds had been returned to the SEC by late August. The witness responded that the funds were returned “[w]hatever day that Mr. Senffner had been ordered by the Court to submit was the day that the money came back.” On redirect the government briefly asked questions related to this topic. In response, the witness stated that Senffner had been held in contempt of court and ordered to return the funds by that date. Ordinarily, an inquiry into the date of an incident’s occurrence would not warrant further inquiry by the government into the reason for that incident’s occurrence — the proverbial “door” is not that wide open. Cf. Thomas, 155 F.3d at 836 (<HOLDING>). But that is not what occurred here. Senffner
holding that misleading testimony regarding the purpose of a proceeding did not warrant inquiry into the result of the proceeding holding that a witness who testifies in one proceeding may not be compelled to give further testimony in a different proceeding holding that a proceeding under section 547 is a core proceeding holding that a workers compensation proceeding is a legal proceeding holding that a notice of appeal filed in an adversary proceeding could not appeal the main proceeding