See id. Haynes offers no evidence beyond the timing of his federal indictment to suggest that it was a result of collusion. Additionally, Haynes’s reliance on a District of Massachusetts case, United States v. Ganious , 635 F. Supp. 2d 80, 85 (D. Mass. 2009), is unavailing. In Ganious , the court held that the defendant was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing on collusion even though he was arrested by state agents who were part of a federal task force, prosecuted by a state prosecutor who was also a Special Assistant United States Attorney, and held in custody for 404 days before his arraignment on federal charges.