2001) (“[A] defendant cannot satisfy the discriminatory effect prong by providing statistical evidence which simply shows that the challenged government action tends to affect one particular group. Rather, the proffered statistics must address the critical issue of whether that particular group was treated differently than a similarly-situated group.”). Discriminatory, intent is shown through evidence that “the decision to prosecute was ‘invidious or in bad faith.’ ” United States v. Olvis, 97 F.3d 739, 743 (4th Cir. 1996) (quoting United States v. Greenwood, 796 F.2d 49, 52 (4th Cir. 1986)). When attempting to prove discriminatory effect, a petitioner must do more than provide vague conclusory statements or generalities. See United States v. Roane, 378 F.3d 382, 400-01 (4th Cir. 2004) (<HOLDING>). Further, it is not enough for a petitioner to
holding law requires court to consider full record of any evidentiary hearing even if hearing held by different judge holding that such statements were not even enough for an evidentiary hearing holding an evidentiary hearing on the applicability of equitable estoppel holding that the supreme court does not require an evidentiary hearing in every case holding that there is no need for an evidentiary hearing when the petitioners habeas submissions demonstrate that the petitioner is conclusively entitled to relief in such circumstances an evidentiary hearing would be a waste of judicial resources