Howard Levern Snider appeals the district court’s 1 order denying his motion to compel the government to file a substantial-assistance sentence-reduction motion. Because Snider’s plea agreement provided that the government retained discretion to decide whether to file a substantial-assistance motion, and because Snider did not make a substantial threshold showing that the government’s refusal to do so was prompted by an unconstitutional motive, such as Snider’s race or religion, or that the government’s refusal was irrational, we agree with the district court that Snider was not entitled to relief. See Wade v. United States, 504 U.S. 181, 185-87, 112 S.Ct. 1840, 118 L.Ed.2d 524 (1992) (district courts may review government’s refusal to file substantial-assistance motion and grant remedy if refusal was based on unconstitutional motive, but defendant has no right to discovery or evidentiary hearing unless he makes substantial threshold showing of government’s improper motive); United States v. Pamperin, 456 F.3d 822, 825 (8th Cir. 2006) (threshold showing requires more than presentation of evidence of substantial assistance and general allegations of improper motive, because court presumes prosecutor properly discharged her duties absent clear evidence to contrary); United States v. Mullins, 399 F.3d 888, 890 (8th Cir. 2005) (relief for government’s refusal to file substantial-assistance motion is provided only if such refusal was prompted by unconstitutional motive or was irrational).

Accordingly, we affirm, and we deny Snider’s pending motions.