Opinion ID: 670324
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Denial of continuance and evidentiary hearing

Text: 21 We review a district court's decision to limit discovery in a selective prosecution case for abuse of discretion. United States v. Bourgeois, 964 F.2d 935, 937 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 113 S.Ct. 290 (1992). We apply the same standard to a denial of an evidentiary hearing. United States v. Ayers, 924 F.2d 1468, 1481 (9th Cir.1991). 22 To gain discovery from the government in a selective prosecution case, the defendant must meet a high threshold: a defendant must present specific facts, not mere allegations, which establish a colorable basis for the existence of both discriminatory application of a law and discriminatory intent on the part of government actors. Bourgeois, 964 F.2d at 939. 23 After carefully reviewing the record, we agree with the district court's conclusion that Jimenez failed to present facts establishing discriminatory application of the law or discriminatory intent. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the continuance or the evidentiary hearing.