Michael Grady v. United States , 44 F. App'x 66 ( 2002 )


Menu:
  •                      United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 02-1040/02-1625
    ___________
    Michael Grady,                           *
    *
    Appellant,                  *
    * Appeal from the United States
    v.                                 * District Court for the
    * Eastern District of Missouri
    United States of America,                *
    *    [UNPUBLISHED]
    Appellee.                   *
    ___________
    Submitted: July 24, 2002
    Filed: August 28, 2002
    ___________
    Before McMILLIAN, FAGG and BOWMAN, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    In these consolidated appeals, federal prisoner Michael Grady appeals from
    final orders entered in the District Court1 for the Eastern District of Missouri denying
    a motion for grand jury records and a subsequent motion for the district court to
    recognize its jurisdiction to review his constitutional claims. Having carefully
    reviewed the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm. Even assuming Grady had a
    legal basis for filing these motions (he already has had a direct criminal appeal and
    1
    The Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, United States District Judge for the
    Eastern District of Missouri.
    has brought a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion), he failed to set forth a particularized need
    for disclosure of grand jury materials, see United States v. Broyles, 
    37 F.3d 1314
    ,
    1318 (8th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 
    514 U.S. 1056
    (1995), and all of Grady’s
    arguments in the proceedings underlying these appeals raise issues that were or
    should have been raised on direct appeal, cf. Thompson v. United States, 
    7 F.3d 1377
    ,
    1379 (8th Cir. 1993) (per curiam), cert. denied, 
    511 U.S. 1010
    (1994) and 
    511 U.S. 1038
    (1994); Dall v. United States, 
    957 F.2d 571
    , 572 (8th Cir. 1992) (per curiam).
    Thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Grady’s motions for
    grand jury records and for the district court to recognize its jurisdiction to review his
    constitutional claims.
    Accordingly we affirm, see 8th Cir. R. 47B, and we deny Grady’s motion to
    supplement the record on appeal with grand jury records.
    A true copy.
    Attest:
    CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 02-1040

Citation Numbers: 44 F. App'x 66

Filed Date: 8/28/2002

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/12/2023