Case ID: f-appx_23/html/0174-01.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. Bernardo Segundo CALLEJA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 01-7674.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 20, 2001.
    Decided Jan. 9, 2002.
    Bernardo Segundo Calleja, Appellant Pro Se.. Thomas Jack Bondurant, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Bernardo Segundo Calleja seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion to unseal grand jury proceedings under Fed.R.Crim.P. 6(e), and his motion to alter or amend the judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). Calleja filed his motion to unseal grand jury proceedings twelve years after we adjudicated his claims on appeal from his criminal convictions. He sought the transcripts for the purpose of obtaining information to support a motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2001). We find that Calleja’s action is civil in nature. See United States v. Miramontez, 995 F.2d 56, 58 (5th Cir.1993) (finding that sixty-day appeal period applies where defendant sought disclosure of grand jury transcripts long after direct appeal concluded to prepare post-conviction challenge to conviction). Thus, we have jurisdiction over both orders. See Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), 4(a)(4)(A)(iv).

We have reviewed the record and the district court’s order denying the motion to unseal and find no abuse of discretion. See In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 800 F.2d 1293, 1299 (4th Cir.1986) (stating standard of review). We agree with the district court that Calleja failed to articulate a particularized need for the transcripts. See Douglas Oil Co. v. Petrol Stops Northwest, 441 U.S. 211, 218, 99 S.Ct. 1667, 60 L.Ed.2d 156 (1979) (providing standard). We also find no abuse of discretion in the denial of Calleja’s Rule 59(e) motion. See Pac. Ins. Co. v. Am. Nat’l Fire Ins. Co., 148 F.3d 396, 402-03 (4th Cir .1998) (stating standard of review). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders. 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.