as Greg Hollins, Greg Cash, Jerry Hollins, and Gowin. 2 Elem also appears in the record as “Elam,” and we will use the “Elem” spelling of his name in this opinion. , 1189 (3d Cir. 1992) (abuse of discretion); United States v. Sobamowo, 892 F.2d 90, 93 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (abuse of discretion); United States v. Zambrana, 841 F.2d 1320, 1329-30 (7th Cir. 1988) (abuse of discretion); United States v. Brown, 761 F.2d 1272, 1275 (9th Cir. 1985) (abuse of discretion); United States v. Alonso, 740 F.2d 862, 868 (11th Cir. 1984) (abuse of discretion); cf. United States v. Thompson, 210 F.3d 855, 859 (8th Cir. 2000) (treating a district court’s determination that necessity existed for a wiretap as a factual question reviewed for clear error); United States v. Diaz, 176 F.3d 52, 109 (2d Cir. 1999) (<HOLDING>); United States v. David, 940 F.2d 722, 728
holding court of appeals role in reviewing issuance of wiretap order is not to make a de novo determination but to decide if facts were minimally adequate to support determination that was made holding that a court of appeals should review de novo a district courts determination of state law holding in the criminal context that a district courts obligation to make a de novo determination with respect to the portions of a magistrate judges report and recommendation to which objections are made did not require a de novo hearing holding that trial courts determination of facts has a presumption of correctness but trial courts legal conclusions are subject to de novo review holding that in the context of an arbitrability determination the court reviews the contract de novo