What is the test for an abuse of supervisory authority?

We review the district court's determination for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Chapman, 524 F.3d 1073, 1086 (9th Cir. 2008). In reviewing the district court's decision, we consider whether there has been flagrant misconduct, whether that conduct resulted in substantial prejudice to the defendant, and whether any lesser remedial action was available. See id. at 1087. The government asserts that only prosecutorial misconduct can justify a court's exercise of supervisory authority, but our cases do not support that limitation. Cf. United States v. Simpson, 927 F.2d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir. 1991) ("Unless the law enforcement officers break the law, the court has no authority to sanction them."). Yet as we discussed above, Harvey suffered no prejudice from the government's conduct. And the district court demonstrated that a lesser remedial action was available by taking it. Refusing to dismiss the indictment was not an abuse of discretion.