victim was necessary to establish the men’s relationship, the district court determined that their relationship was adequately established by other evidence of their adult criminal activity. This afforded it discretion to preclude cross-examination on the stabbing as “repetitive or only marginally relevant.” Id. We further note that the district court offered to reconsider its rulings if, after defense counsel cross-examined Gooden and Coe, counsel represented that he had not been able sufficiently to impeach their credibility. Because counsel failed so to assert, there is no basis to conclude that the jury was not “in possession of facts sufficient to make a discriminating ap praisal” of the two witnesses’ credibility. See United States v. Laljie, 184 F.3d 180, 192 (2d Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>) (internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, we
holding that requirements of apprendi were not met where facts on which sentence enhancement was based were not charged and submitted to the jury holding that a rule 3850 motion based upon new facts or a significant change in the law must be filed within two years of the time such facts become known or such change is announced holding crossexamination not improperly curtailed where jury possessed such facts holding that nature and occasion of offenses are facts inherent in convictions and those facts need not be alleged in indictment or submitted to jury holding that michigans arbitration rule with a twentyday deadline did not mandate that the trial justices discretionary power to permit a party to plead beyond established time limits upon a showing of excusable neglect    is or should be curtailed