22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T41f,MEMORANDUM Kenneth Beals appeals his conviction (via guilty plea) on one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm, 18 U.'S.C. § 922(g)(1). We affirm. The district court did not err in denying Beals’s motion to dismiss the indictment for outrageous government conduct. Beals has not shown that the challenged governmental conduct was a due process violation “so grossly shocking and so outrageous as to violate the universal sense of justice.” United States v. Stinson, 647 F.3d 1196, 1209 (9th Cir.2011). Nor has Beals shown that the district court abused its discretion in declining to dismiss the indictment under its supervisory authority. See United States v. Barrera-Moreno, 951 F.2d 1089, 1091-92 (9th Cir.1991). Likewise, Beals has not shown that the district court abused its discretion in denying his request for an evidentiary hearing. See United States v. Howell, 231 F.3d 615, 620-21 (9th Cir.2000). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T451,

MEMORANDUM

Kenneth Beals appeals his conviction (via guilty plea) on one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm, 18 U.'S.C. § 922(g)(1). We affirm.

The district court did not err in denying Beals’s motion to dismiss the indictment for outrageous government conduct. Beals has not shown that the challenged governmental conduct was a due process violation “so grossly shocking and so outrageous as to violate the universal sense of justice.” United States v. Stinson, 647 F.3d 1196, 1209 (9th Cir.2011). Nor has Beals shown that the district court abused its discretion in declining to dismiss the indictment under its supervisory authority. See United States v. Barrera-Moreno, 951 F.2d 1089, 1091-92 (9th Cir.1991).

Likewise, Beals has not shown that the district court abused its discretion in denying his request for an evidentiary hearing. See United States v. Howell, 231 F.3d 615, 620-21 (9th Cir.2000).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.