Cases from cite.case.law:

BURKE, v. REGALADO, v., 935 F.3d 960 (10th Cir. 2019)

. . . Brodin et al., Weinstein's Federal Evidence § 609.04[1] (2d ed. 1997 & 2019 update); see also United . . . of Evidence providing that Rule 403 does not apply); 4 Brodin et al., Weinstein's Federal Evidence § 609.04 . . .

ANDERSON, v. KING,, 732 F.3d 854 (8th Cir. 2013)

. . . . §§ 609.04 (lesser-included offenses), 609.19 (murder in the second degree), 609.221 (assault in the . . .

LEVITON MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC. v. SHANGHAI MEIHAO ELECTRIC, INC., 613 F. Supp. 2d 670 (D. Md. 2009)

. . . MPEP 609.04(a)” (Paper No. 156, 8). . . .

UNITED STATES v. H. PETTIFORD,, 238 F.R.D. 33 (D.D.C. 2006)

. . . .); 6 Weinstein’s Federal Evidence § 609.04[2][a]); see also 1 McCormick on Evidence § 42, at 144-45 . . . the basic concerns relevant to the balancing under Rule 609(a)(1).” 6 Weinstein’s Federal Evidence § 609.04 . . .

TURNER, v. WHITE,, 443 F. Supp. 2d 288 (E.D.N.Y. 2005)

. . . Loizzo, 986 F.Supp. 245, 250 (S.D.N.Y. 1997); 4 Weinstein’s Federal Evidence, § 609.04[l]-[2][a], 609.20 . . .

BRUNDIDGE, v. CITY OF BUFFALO R. L. D. H. J., 79 F. Supp. 2d 219 (W.D.N.Y. 1999)

. . . See 4 Weinstein’s Federal Evidence § 609.04[2][a], at 609-20 (1997); see also Daniels, 986 F.Supp. at . . .

FLETCHER, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, a a a, 54 F. Supp. 2d 328 (S.D.N.Y. 1999)

. . . Berger, Weinstein’s Federal Evidence, § 609.04[3][a] (2nd ed.1998). . . . Berger, Weinstein’s Federal Evidence, § 609.04[3][a] (2nd ed.1998). . . . .

UNITED STATES v. BUTCH, 48 F. Supp. 2d 453 (D.N.J. 1999)

. . . See id. at 761 n. 4; see also 6 Weinstein’s Federal Evidence § 609.04[2][a], “This list does not exhaust . . . more basic concerns relevant to the balancing under Rule 609(a)(1).” 6 Weinstein’s Federal Evidence § 609.04 . . . See 6 Weinstein’s Federal Evidence § 609.04[2][f] (quoting Federal Judicial Center, Pattern Criminal . . .

UNITED STATES, v. A. MILLER, U. S., 48 M.J. 49 (C.A.A.F. 1998)

. . . See Weinstein, supra at § 609.04[2][a][i] and [ii]. . . . Id. at § 609.04[2][a] [iii]. . . . Id. at § 609.04[2] [a] [iv]. . . . Id. at § 609.04[2][a][v], citing United States v. . . . Id. at § 609.04[2][a][vi]. . . .

DANIELS, v. P. O. LOIZZO, M. V. P. D. P. O. M. V. P. D., 986 F. Supp. 245 (S.D.N.Y. 1997)

. . . of criminal convictions for impeachment purposes in civil actions. 4 Wein-stein’s Federal Evidence § 609.04 . . . See 4 Weinstein’s Federal Evidence § 609.04[2][a], at 609-20 (1997); Hayes, 553 F.2d at 828. . . . Fed.R.Evid. 609(a)(1); 4 Weinstein's Federal Evidence § 609.04[3][a], at 609-36 (1997); see, e.g., Eng . . .

YOUR CONSTRUCTION CENTER, INC. v. DOMINION MORTGAGE REALTY TRUST DOMINION a R., 402 F. Supp. 757 (S.D. Fla. 1975)

. . . . § 609.04 Unlawful to transact tusiness prior to compliance. . . .

HAMMOND- KNOWLTON v. UNITED STATES, 121 F.2d 192 (2d Cir. 1941)

. . . Acts, page 261, however, the tax was determined as $609.04 less than the amount paid. . . .

HAMMOND- KNOWLTON v. HARTFORD CONNECTICUT TRUST CO. OF HARTFORD, CONN., 89 F.2d 175 (2d Cir. 1937)

. . . In this report the tax due was stated to be $59,155.37, leaving an overassessment of $609.04 for which . . . The court below held that the overas-sessed sum of $609.04 was not refundable because no timely claim . . .

AMERICAN- HAWAIIAN S. S. CO. v. MORSE DRY DOCK REPAIR CO., 169 F. 678 (S.D.N.Y. 1909)

. . . long time in port, the libellant saved the expense of loading overtime and on holidays, amounting to $609.04 . . . That would entitle the libellant to $4,774.95, but as it saved $609.04 in overtime in loading, that amount . . .