determined that Marranea had failed to make a substantial showing that the affidavits reflected false statements that were made knowingly and recklessly. The District Court committed no error in finding that Marranea was not entitled to a Franks hearing. United States v. Brown, 3 F.3d 673, 678 (3d Cir.1993). In the alternative, Marranea contends that even if he is unable to make a substantial preliminary showing on the reckless or intentional withholding of information from the affidavits, the District Court should have conducted an ex parte, in camera review of the confidential informants’ statements to determine whether he was entitled to a Franks hearing. We have previously held that ex parte, in camera review is unnecessary in instances such as Marranca’s. See Brown, 3 F.3d at 680 (<HOLDING>). In anticipation of a Franks hearing, Marranea
holding that because the defendants offer of proof failed to show that the affiant was untruthful the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to order disclosure of the informant holding that the district court was within its discretion not to order disclosure of the governments confidential informant where the informant only helped orchestrate the search that led to discovery of incriminating evidence not the crimes themselves and could not testify to any relevant fact holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to strike when movant failed to show prejudice holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to order production of government files under rule 16a1c holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to allow the withdrawal of the juiy trial waiver