To gain access to the desired documents, the moving party must show that the subpoenaed documents are: (1) relevant; (2) admissible; and (3) requested with adequate specificity. Id. at 700; United States v. Hardy, 224 F.3d 752, 755 (8th Cir. 2000). A request will usually be sufficiently specific where it limits documents to a reasonable period of time and states with reasonable precision the subjects to which the documents relate.

Johnson also contends that, in United States v. Hardy, 224 F.3d 752, 757 (8th Cir.2000), the court recognized that, on direct appeal, a court may reverse where the case as a whole presents an image of unfairness that has resulted in the deprivation of a defendant's constitutional rights, even though none of the claimed errors is itself sufficient to require reversal. She contends that the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals purports to reject that standard on habeas review, even though nothing justifies such different treatment between direct review and habeas review.

State v. Faulkner, 220 Kan. 153, 156, 551 P.2d 1247 (1976). The State's reliance on United States v. Logan, 121 F.3d 1172, 1178 (8th Cir. 1997), and United States v. Hardy, 224 F.3d 752, 757 (8th Cir. 2000), confirms the principle set out in Faulkner, that proof of knowledge is meaningful when a specific intent crime is charged. Logan was convicted of conspiracy to distribute, and to possess with intent to distribute, more than 1 kilogram each of heroin and methamphetamine.

Evidence is admissible under Rule 404(b) if: "(1) it is relevant to a material issue; (2) it is similar in kind and not overly remote in time to the crime charged; (3) it is supported by sufficient evidence; and (4) its potential prejudice does not substantially outweigh its probative value." United States v. Hardy, 224 F.3d 752, 757 (8th Cir. 2000) (internal quotations omitted). We have held on numerous occasions that a prior conviction for distributing drugs, and even the possession of user-quantities of a controlled substance, are relevant under Rule 404(b) to show knowledge and intent to commit a current charge of conspiracy to distribute drugs.

Evidence is admissible under Rule 404(b) if: "(1) it is relevant to a material issue; (2) it is similar in kind and not overly remote in time to the crime charged; (3) it is supported by sufficient evidence; and (4) its potential prejudice does not substantially outweigh its probative value." United States v. Hardy, 224 F.3d 752, 757 (8th Cir. 2000) (internal quotations omitted). We have held on numerous occasions that a prior conviction for distributing drugs, and even the possession of user-quantities of a controlled substance, are relevant under Rule 404(b) to show knowledge and intent to commit a current charge of conspiracy to distribute drugs.

The admission of evidence of prior bad acts is reviewed for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Hardy, 224 F.3d 752, 756 (8th Cir. 2000). Rule 404(b) permits such evidence when offered to prove "motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident . . ."

Before the court can issue a subpoena pursuant to Rule 17(c), the requesting party must show the information sought is relevant, requested with specificity, and is admissible. Id. at 700; see also United States v. Hardy, 224 F.3d 752, 755 (8th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted). The "specificity and relevancy elements require more than the title of a document and conjecture as to its contents."

Indeed, quashing a subpoena issued to a third-party on the United States' motion pursuant to Rule 17 is not unprecedented. See e.g. United States v Hardy, 224 F.3d 752 (8th Cir. 2000) (holding that district court "did not abuse its discretion in quashing subpoena" for internal police communications on motion by the United States); United States v. Robinson, No. 16–545, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55199 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 10, 2017) (granting the United States's motion to quash defendant's Rule 17 subpoenas issued to the Nassau County Police Department and the Suffolk County Police Department).The Court is satisfied that the United States has standing to move to quash Cartagena's subpoena. Consequently, the Court will address the merits of the United States' motion to quash.

And even if Mr. Shelton satisfies "the minimal requirements for relevance, admissibility, and specificity under Nixon, the district court may still properly quash a subpoena under Rule 17(c) if 'compliance would be unreasonable or oppressive.'" See United States v. Hardy, 224 F.3d 752, 756 (8th Cir. 2013) (quoting Fed. R. Crim. P. 17(c)(2)). Ultimately, the decision whether to quash these subpoenas is committed to this Court's discretion.

To be granted leave to serve a subpoena duces tecum for production of documents in a criminal case, "the moving party must show that the subpoenaed document (1) is relevant, (2) is admissible, and (3) has been requested with adequate specificity." United States v. Hardy, 224 F.3d 752, 755 (8th Cir. 2000). The relevance and specificity elements require more than the title of a document and a suggestion of what the document may say. United States v. Bradford, 806 F.3d 1151, 1155 (8th Cir. 2015) (citing United States v. Stevenson, 727 F.3d 826, 831 (8th Cir. 2013)).