United States v. Anton Lemar Dames

Case: 16-17617 Date Filed: 09/07/2017 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-17617
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:11-cr-20796-DLG-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ANTON LEMAR DAMES,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(September 7, 2017)
Before JULIE CARNES, JILL PRYOR and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 16-17617 Date Filed: 09/07/2017 Page: 2 of 3
Anton Dames appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for the release
of grand jury transcripts. 1 After review, 2 we affirm the district court.
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e) provides for limited disclosure of
grand jury proceedings. We have held that, to obtain disclosure of protected grand
jury materials, a person must show a compelling and “particularized need” for the
documents. United States v. Aisenberg, 358 F.3d 1327, 1348 (11th Cir. 2004).
Parties seeking grand jury materials must show that: (1) “the material they seek is
needed to avoid a possible injustice in another judicial proceeding”; (2) “the need
for disclosure is greater than the need for continued secrecy”; and (3) “their request
is structured to cover only material so needed.” Id.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to disclose the
transcripts. Dames did not demonstrate that he met any of the three factors the
court must consider in evaluating whether to disclose grand jury materials. See id.
His only argument is that his trial attorneys conspired against him in order to
secure his convictions and cover up the misdeeds of his first trial attorney, and, in
1
Even liberally construing Dames’ brief on appeal, he does not raise any argument as to
the issues he raised in his motion to correct or amend, which the district court treated as a motion
for reconsideration, and, consequently, he has abandoned any such arguments. See United States
v. Ford, 270 F.3d 1346, 1347 (11th Cir. 2001) (stating issues not timely raised in the initial briefs
are deemed abandoned); Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998)
(“Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by attorneys and
will, therefore, be liberally construed.”).
2
A district court’s ruling on whether to provide access to sealed documents is reviewed
for abuse of discretion. United States v. Ignasiak, 667 F.3d 1217, 1238 n.25 (11th Cir. 2012).
2
Case: 16-17617 Date Filed: 09/07/2017 Page: 3 of 3
the process, violated Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) and refused to
provide him with necessary discovery. This claim does not demonstrate a
particularized need for the documents. Dames makes no attempt to structure his
request to cover only the material needed. See Aisenberg, 358 F.3d at 1348. Nor
does he show the material is needed to avoid possible injustice in another judicial
proceeding. See id. Indeed, since Dames has already exhausted his appeals and
filed a § 2255 motion to vacate, it is not clear what additional judicial proceeding
Dames could initiate. As such, the district court did not abuse its discretion in
denying Dames’ request for grand jury transcripts.
AFFIRMED.
3