analogous to Bolden’s have rejected them. E.g., United States v. Brady, 579 F.2d 1121, 1133 (9th Cir.1978) (“[A] fair cross section of the community, must be achieved within the division as a whole rather than any of the division’s component counties.”); Savage v. United States, 547 F.2d 212, 216 n. 8 (3d Cir.1976) (“Insofar as petitioner contends that the petit jury list should contain a larger percentage of prospective jurors from Philadelphia and its black population, so as to give him a more representative background of his peers to judge him ..., we r 980) (“[T]here is no constitutional right to a jury chosen from the division where the offense was committed or from the entire district which includes that division.”); United States v. Young, 618 F.2d 1281, 1288 (8th Cir.1980) (<HOLDING>). With respect to division-based jury
holding that rule 606b does not violate the sixth amendment holding that the exclusion of prospective jurors from either the area where the crime was committed or where the defendant resided does not violate the sixth amendment holding that exclusion of defense witness does not violate sixth amendment where defendant failed to comply with discovery rule requiring that witnesses be identified before trial holding that forfeiture of funds to be used for legal fees does not violate the fifth or sixth amendment recognizing that we are obligated to reverse where the improper exclusion of evidence places the underlying fairness of the entire trial in doubt or where the exclusion affects the substantial rights of the defendant