discretion, Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991), and a petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that extraordinary relief is warranted, Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004).

Gazlay argues that the State failed to present exculpatory evidence to the grand jury and that unrelated and irrelevant testimony was introduced at the grand jury proceeding. "Dismissal of an indictment on the basis of governmental misconduct is an extreme sanction that should be utilized infrequently." Lay v. State, 110 Nev. 1189, 1198, 886 P.2d 448, 454 (1994). The defendant must show substantial prejudice, or a reasonable probability that the outcome would have been different absent the misconduct, in order to warrant dismissal of an indictment. Id.; see also Sheriff v. Keeney, 106 Nev. 213, 216, 791 P.2d 55, 57 (1990).

We conclude that extraordinary relief is not warranted.

Gazlay fails to demonstrate a reasonable probability that the grand jury would not have found probable cause existed to indict him had the letter been introduced or had the unrelated testimony been omitted. Therefore, Gazlay fails to demonstrate that the district court manifestly abused its discretion by denying his pretrial petition for a writ of habeas corpus. See Rugamas v. Eighth Judicial Din. Court, 129 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 46, 30 P.3d 887, 895-96 (2013) (a district court manifestly abuses its discretion by denying a pretrial habeas petition when there is no legal evidence to

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 1947A satisfy the elements of the charged offenses in a challenged indictment).

Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.

Pairaguirre

fACS u-k Douglas Cherry

cc: Hon. Elizabeth Goff Gonzalez, District Judge Steven Christopher Gazlay Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 1947A .0