United States v. Venable, 666 F.3d 893

Venable was indicted for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
Venable, African American, claimed selective prosecution under Project Exile due to race and sought discovery into prosecutorial criteria.
Turner and Zechman, white defendants, were prosecuted in state court for similar firearm offenses and not federally prosecuted.
Project Exile is a federal–state initiative in Richmond that channels firearm offenses to federal prosecution when possible, with state charges dropped if federal charges are pursued.
Turner and Zechman were prosecuted by Campbell County authorities in the Western District of Virginia; Venable’s case was referred to the Eastern District of Virginia by Richmond authorities under Project Exile.
The events spanned January–April 2008, with state charges for Turner and Zechman and a federal indictment against Venable following referral under Project Exile; Venable was convicted in 2008 and later appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Venable is entitled to discovery in support of a selective-prosecution claim.	Venable argues Cmte. evidence shows racial disparity and seeks records.	The government contends discovery is inappropriate without credible showing.	Discovery denied; insufficient showing of discriminatory effect and intent.
Whether Venable established similarly situated defendants of another race were not prosecuted.	Turner and Zechman were similarly situated yet not federally prosecuted.	Turner and Zechman were prosecuted by different sovereigns; not similarly situated under Project Exile.	No credible showing of similarly situated individuals prosecuted differently.
Whether the statistical evidence presented demonstrates discriminatory intent.	Statistics show black predominance in Exile prosecutions.	Statistics lack appropriate comparative basis and do not prove discriminatory intent.	Statistical disparity alone does not establish discriminatory intent.

United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456 (1996) (high burden to prove selective-prosecution claims; evidence must show discriminatory purpose and effect)
United States v. Olvis, 97 F.3d 739 (4th Cir. 1996) (factors for similarly situated analysis; many factors beyond race matter)
United States v. Lighty, 616 F.3d 321 (4th Cir. 2010) (standard of review for discovery in selective-prosecution cases)
Wayte v. United States, 470 U.S. 598 (1985) (requiring evidence of invidious or discriminatory intent beyond awareness of policy effects)
Jones, 36 F. Supp. 2d 304 (E.D. Va. 1999) (precedent noting concerns about Project Exile processes and race considerations)