Task: songer_oththres

What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals. You will be asked a question pertaining to some threshold issue at the trial court level. These issues are only considered to be present if the court of appeals is reviewing whether or not the litigants should properly have been allowed to get a trial court decision on the merits. That is, the issue is whether or not the issue crossed properly the threshhold to get on the district court agenda. The issue is: "Did the court refuse to rule on the merits of the appeal because of a threshhold issue other than lack of jurisdiction, standing, mootness, failure to state a claim, exhaustion, timeliness, immunity, frivolousness, or nonjusticiable political question?" Answer the question based on the directionality of the appeals court decision. If the court discussed the issue in its opinion and answered the related question in the affirmative, answer "Yes". If the issue was discussed and the opinion answered the question negatively, answer "No". If the opinion considered the question but gave a mixed answer, supporting the respondent in part and supporting the appellant in part, answer "Mixed answer". If the opinion does not discuss the issue, or notes that a particular issue was raised by one of the litigants but the court dismissed the issue as frivolous or trivial or not worthy of discussion for some other reason, answer "Issue not discussed". If the opinion considered the question but gave a "mixed" answer, supporting the respondent in part and supporting the appellant in part (or if two issues treated separately by the court both fell within the area covered by one question and the court answered one question affirmatively and one negatively), answer "Mixed answer". If the opinion either did not consider or discuss the issue at all or if the opinion indicates that this issue was not worthy of consideration by the court of appeals even though it was discussed by the lower court or was raised in one of the briefs, answer "Issue not discussed".

PER CURIAM.
The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico appointed the appellant, the Special Independent Prosecutor, to investigate possible crimes arising out of the shooting deaths of two persons arrested as terrorists at Cerro Maravilla. The Special Prosecutor asked the federal district court to release the transcripts of three federal grand jury proceedings connected with the Cerro Maravilla events. The district court denied the requests on the ground that the prosecutor had not made a showing of “particularized need,” which Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e)(2) requires as a condition to a breach of the general rule of grand jury secrecy. United, States v. Sells Engineering, Inc., 463 U.S. 418, 444, 103 S.Ct. 3133, 3148, 77 L.Ed.2d 743 (1983); Illinois v. Abbott & Associates, Inc., 460 U.S. 557, 566-67, 103 S.Ct. 1356, 1360-61, 75 L.Ed.2d 281 (1983); Douglas Oil Co. v. Petrol Stops Northwest, 441 U.S. 211, 222-23, 99 S.Ct. 1667, 1674-75, 60 L.Ed.2d 156 (1979). The Special Prosecutor appeals from the denial.
At oral argument we learned two significant additional facts. First, the Special Prosecutor apparently agrees that his request for grand jury access can be supported with more specific, detailed reasons —that, in effect, his presentation may have been too broad and general to have allowed the district court to weigh properly his particular needs against the need for continued secrecy. The Special Prosecutor has stated that he intends to file another request for access, this time specifying in significantly greater detail precisely what he needs and exactly why he needs it. Second, the United States Department of Justice has noted that it will be willing to consider such requests as the Special Prosecutor may address to it for access. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 6(e)(3)(C)(iv). (“Disclosure otherwise prohibited by this rule of matters occurring before the grand jury may also be made — ... when permitted by a court at the request of an attorney for the government, upon a showing that such matters may disclose a violation of state criminal law, to an appropriate official of a state or subdivision of a state for the purpose of enforcing such law.”). The Department adds that it will “join him in requesting appropriate court orders to release these transcripts” if the prosecutor “furnishes fair suspicion, that an injustice would be done in any of the local proceedings for which [the Special Prosecutor] is responsible.”
Consequently, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of the Special Prosecutor’s request. Our affirmance is without prejudice to the prosecutor making a more specific, detailed and particularized “access” request and is also without prejudice to any request the Justice Department may wish to make under Rule 6(e)(3)(C)(iv).
Affirmed.

Question: Did the court refuse to rule on the merits of the appeal because of a threshhold issue other than lack of jurisdiction, standing, mootness, failure to state a claim, exhaustion, timeliness, immunity, frivolousness, or nonjusticiable political question?
A. No
B. Yes
C. Mixed answer
D. Issue not discussed
Answer:

Answer: D