Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Detroit HINES, also known as Li'l Nut, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-08-20
Citations: 392 F. App'x 325
Docket Number: No. 10-10138
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Detroit HINES, also known as Li’l Nut, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 392
Pages: 325–326

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Detroit HINES, also known as Li’l Nut, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-10138
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Aug. 20, 2010.
Renee Harris Toliver, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Detroit Hines, Bruceton Mills, WV, pro se.
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
In 2007, Detroit Hines, federal prisoner # 35457-177, was convicted of several cocaine and firearms offenses, including conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute more than 50 grams of crack cocaine. In December 2009, at a time when he had no actions pending, Hines filed a pro se motion requesting disclosure of the grand jury transcripts, minutes, or testimony relating to his indictment. The district court construed the motion as arising under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e)(3)(E)(ii) and denied the motion. Hines has appealed, and the Government has moved for dismissal or for summary affirmance. Alternatively, the Government moves for an extension of time in which to file a brief.
It is questionable whether Hines's motion had a valid jurisdictional basis in the district court. See United States v. Carvajal, 989 F.2d 170, 170 (5th Cir.1993). However, even if we assume that the district court correctly exercised jurisdiction under the rule cited above, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion because Hines failed to show a particularized need for the grand jury materials. See United States v. Miramontez, 995 F.2d 56, 57-58 (5th Cir.1993). Accordingly, the Government's motion for summary affirmance is granted. The Government's alternative motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.