Case ID: f-appx_91/html/0301-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Donikki HARDY, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 03-7393.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: March 19, 2004.
    Decided: April 2, 2004.
    
      Donikki Hardy, Appellant pro se.
    Isaac Louis Johnson, Jr., Office of the United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

Donikki Hardy appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for disclosure of the “signed grand jury concurrence form.” The decision whether to authorize disclosure of grand jury records is within the discretion of the district court. In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 800 F.2d 1293, 1299 (4th Cir.1986). “Parties seeking grand jury transcripts ... must show that the material they seek is needed to avoid a possible injustice in another judicial proceeding, that the need for disclosure is greater than the need for continued secrecy, and that their request is structured to cover only material so needed.” Id. at 1298. Our review of the record shows that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Hardy’s motion, as Hardy failed to make a particularized showing. Thus, we affirm. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED