United States v. Detroit Hines , 392 F. App'x 325 ( 2010 )

Case: 10-10138 Document: 00511210532 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/20/2010
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
August 20, 2010
No. 10-10138
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
DETROIT HINES, also known as Li’l Nut,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No.4:06-CR-88-3
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
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
*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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.
Case: 10-10138 Document: 00511210532 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/20/2010
No. 10-10138
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.
2