of a writ. See Allied Chemical Corp., 449 U.S. at 35, 101 S.Ct. 188; Gall, 865 F.2d at 788-89. First, this Court did not clearly err as a matter of law in ordering the disbursal of funds for DNA testing and ordering that Petitioners retain the forensic evidence to provide Cherrix the opportunity to access the evidence. See infra section V.B. As has been demonstrated in detail, this Court possesses the authority to order the disbursal of funds for Cherrix’s requested DNA testing under 21 U.S.C. § 848(q), and the authority to provide for Cherrix’s access to the existing physical evidence under ,the rules and law governing discov ery. Where, as here, a court acts well within its discretion in ordering discovery, there is no clear error as a matter of law. See McDaniel, 127 F.3d at 888 (<HOLDING>). In a case similar to this one, where the
holding that a discovery exception to a statute of limitation applies only to the discovery of facts not discovery of the law holding that the defendant did not establish good faith as a matter of law holding that the district court did not err as a matter of law in issuing a discovery order because a death row habeas petitioner had shown good cause for seeking discovery holding that the time of discovery of fraud is not a proper matter for summary judgment holding that district court did not abuse its discretion by denying motion to extend discovery where no effort was made to explain why the requested discovery could not have taken place within the original discovery period