argues that the District Court erred in concluding that the government was not obligated to move for a downward departure based upon his substantial assistance. “The district court generally lacks authority to award a substantial-assistance departure in the absence of a government motion.” United States v. Licona-Lopez, 163 F.3d 1040, 1042 (8th Cir.1998). “The court can, however, grant the departure in the absence of a motion if it finds that the refusal was irrational, in bad faith, or based on an unconstitutional motive.” Id. Doolin argues, as he did in the District Court, that the government acted in bad faith when it failed to submit the § 5K1.1 motion. Doolin fails, however, to provide any evidence of bad faith. See United States v. Johnston, 973 F.2d 611, 614-15 (8th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1068, 113 S.Ct. 1019,
holding that the bare assertion that a dismissal without prejudice was favorable to the plaintiff was insufficient to survive a motion to dismiss holding that a bad faith claim is a tort holding that a bare conclusory allegation of an intent to discriminate is insufficient specific nonconclusory facts from which such an intent may reasonably be inferred is required holding bare allegation of social friendship insufficient holding that a bare allegation of bad faith is insufficient to require an inquiry into the governments decision not to file  5k11 motion