Opinion ID: 516906
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: analysis

Text: 8 The issues presented here are almost identical to those raised in Barry v. United States, 865 F.2d 1317 (D.C.Cir.1989), which we also decide today, except that the appellant here has sought both criminal and civil contempt sanctions. In deciding this appeal, we have fully considered and applied the legal principles enunciated in Barry. Accordingly, we will not repeat the legal analysis offered in that opinion. 9
10 As in Barry, we find that the cause of action stated in the appellant's petition is civil, not criminal, and that it arises solely under Rule 6(e)(2). Our reasons for this judgment are precisely the same as those given in Barry. Thus, as in Barry, we hold that the judgment of the District Court is appealable under either 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1292(a)(1) (1982) or 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291 (1982). 11
12 In Barry, we found at least one news article that established a prima facie violation of Rule 6(e)(2). In the instant case, however, we agree with the District Court that none of the evidence offered by appellant is sufficient to make out a prima facie case that Government attorneys or agents were the sources of any information about matters occurring before the grand jury. See United States v. Eisenberg, 711 F.2d 959, 963 (11th Cir.1983). Finding no evidence of a prima facie case of a violation of Rule 6(e)(2), we affirm the action of the District Court dismissing this case. 13 AFFIRMED.