Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Tommy Merrel JACKSON, also known as TJ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-01-31
Citations: 264 F. App'x 379
Docket Number: No. 07-10322
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Tommy Merrel JACKSON, also known as TJ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 264
Pages: 379–379

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Tommy Merrel JACKSON, also known as TJ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 07-10322
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Jan. 31, 2008.
Angie Lee Henson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Tommy Merrel Jackson, El Reno, OK, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Tommy Merrel Jackson, federal prisoner # 27477-077, appeals the district court's denial of his motion for grand jury materials, which was filed pursuant to Fed. R.CeimP. 6. The Government argues that the court lacked jurisdiction to consider Jackson's motion because it is best construed as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. This argument is unavailing because the motion does not challenge Jackson's conviction or sentence, nor does it seek 'to challenge the disposition of his first § 2255 motion. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255; Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 532, 125 S.Ct. 2641, 162 L.Ed.2d 480 (2005).
Jackson's argument that the district court erred by denying his request for grand jury materials is likewise unavailing. Jackson has not shown a particularized need for these materials. See United States v. Miramontez, 995 F.2d 56, 59 (5th Cir.1993); In re McDermott & Co., Inc., 622 F.2d 166, 172 (5th Cir.1980). Consequently, he has not shown that the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion. See Miramontez, 995 F.2d at 59. The judgment of the district court is 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.