If the defendant has not complied with the Rule, the motion may be denied for that reason alone. See United States v. Ming, 2002 WL 1949227, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 22, 2002). The Court considers each request applying the settled standards in this Circuit.

Defendant has failed to comply with Local Crim. R. 16.1. Accordingly, his motion, dated September 6, 2002, is denied in all respects save that the government shall move in limine, no later than 10 days prior to the scheduled start of the trial, for a determination as to the admissibility of any Rule 404(b) evidence it proposes to use. See, e.g., United States v. Ming, No. 02 Crim. 0596 (LAK), 2002 WL 1949227, *1 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 22, 2002); United States v. Roberts, No. 01 Crim. 0410 (RWS), 2001 WL 1602213, at *12 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 14, 2001); United States v. Jailall, No. 01 Crim. 0069 (RWS), 2000 WL 1368055, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 20, 2000); United States v. Guevara, No. 99 Crim. 445 (AGS), 1999 WL 639720, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 23, 1999); United States v. Ahmad, 992 F. Supp. 682, 684-85 (S.D.N.Y. 1998). SO ORDERED.

The letter contains no indication that counsel complied with Local Crim. R. 16.1. The motion therefore is denied. See, e.g., United States v. Coleman Commercial Carriers, Inc., No. S1 01 Crim. 1042 (LAK) (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 29, 2002); United States v. Ming, No. 02 Crim. 0596 (LAK), 2002 WL 1949227, *1 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 22, 2002); United States v. Roberts, No. 01 Crim. 0410 (RWS), 2001 WL 1602213, at *12 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 14, 2001); United States v. Jailall, No. 01 Crim. 0069 (RWS), 2000 WL 1368055, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 20, 2000); United States v. Guevara, No. 99 Crim. 445 (AGS), 1999 WL 639720, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 23, 1999); United States v. Ahmad, 992 F. Supp. 682, 684-85 (S.D.N.Y. 1998). Counsel attention is drawn also to the fact that this sort of boilerplate application — which among other things seeks particulars as to "who manufactured" a Glock pistol (obviously Glock) and is addressed to "United Hon. Lewis A. Kaplan" — is not favored.

CCC's motion seeks also a bill of particulars and certain discovery. There is no suggestion in its papers, however, that it complied with Local Crim. R. 16.1. See, e.g., United States v. Ming, No. 02 Crim. 0596 (LAK), 2002 WL 1949227, *1 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 22, 2002); United States v. Roberts, No. 01 Crim. 0410 (RWS), 2001 WL 1602213, at *12 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 14, 2001); United States v. Jailall, No. 01 Crim. 0069 (RWS), 2000 WL 1368055, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 20, 2000); United States v. Guevara, No. 99 Crim. 445 (AGS), 1999 WL 639720, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 23, 1999); United States v. Ahmad, 992 F. Supp. 682, 684-85 (S.D.N.Y. 1998). For the foregoing reasons, CCC's motion is denied in all respects.