United States v. Coplin

Opinions of the United
2005 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
12-5-2005
USA v. Coplin
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 05-3362
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005
Recommended Citation
"USA v. Coplin" (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 164.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/164
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2005 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
APS-51 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 05-3362
________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
JEFFREY COPLIN,
Appellant
____________________________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Crim. No. 00-cr-00745)
District Judge: Honorable J. Curtis Joyner
_______________________________________
Submitted For Possible Summary Action Under Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
November 17, 2005
BEFORE: SLOVITER, McKEE and FISHER, Circuit Judges
(Filed December 5, 2005)
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Jeffrey Coplin, appeals from the District Court’s order denying his
motion seeking grand jury material. For the following reasons, we will summarily affirm.
Coplin pled guilty to distribution of cocaine base and distribution of cocaine base
within 1,000 feet of a public playground, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 860.
He was sentenced to concurrent sentences of 20 years imprisonment and 10 years
supervised release. On August 9, 2004, we affirmed on direct appeal.
In May 2005, Coplin filed a “Motion for Transcript of Grand Jury Minutes.” In
addition to requesting the disclosure of grand jury materials, Coplin alleged that he “is
innocent of the charges,” that the “gran[d] jury was mislead to think that the petitioner
was a big drug dealer,” and that the government was engaged in a “vindictive
prosecution.” The motion did not expressly request any relief from Coplin’s criminal
conviction or sentence. In a one-sentence order entered June 28, 2005, the District Court
denied the motion. Coplin timely filed this appeal.
As a threshold matter, we are satisfied that we have appellate jurisdiction, as the
denial of the request for disclosure of grand jury materials in this case qualifies as an
appealable final order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. See United States v. Miramontez,
995 F.2d 56, 59 n.4 (5th Cir. 1993) (“Orders granting or denying disclosure of grand jury
materials for use in civil actions are appealable.”); In re Grand Jury Investigation No.
78-184, 642 F.2d 1184, 1187 (9th Cir. 1981) (holding that Rule 6(e) motion filed after
criminal proceedings terminated was independent proceeding and that order entered was
final and appealable under § 1291 because it conclusively resolved disclosure issue,
which was only issue raised), aff'd sub nom. United States v. Sells Engineering, Inc., 456
U.S. 960 (1983); United States v. Sobotka, 623 F.2d 764, 766 (2d Cir. 1980) (same); State
of Wisc. v. Schaffer, 565 F.2d 961, 965 n.1 (7th Cir. 1977) (same).
2
We have explained the standards governing disclosure of grand jury information as
follows:
To support a motion for a judicially ordered disclosure of grand jury
testimony, a party must show a particularized need for that information
which outweighs the public interest in secrecy. [] Once such a need is
shown, the district court must weigh the competing interests and order so
much disclosure as needed for the ends of justice. [] In balancing the
competing interests, the district court necessarily is infused with substantial
discretion. [] This court must analyze a district court’s decision to disclose
grand jury information only to determine if there was an abuse of that
discretion.
United States v. McDowell, 888 F.2d 285, 289 (3d Cir. 1989) (citations and quotation
marks omitted). We find no abuse of the District Court’s discretion here. Coplin alleged
that he needed the grand jury material to demonstrate that “he was being prosecuted
because of his sister’s involvement with the DEA.” Apparently, Coplin believes that the
government was engaged in a “vindictive prosecution” because his sister refused to
cooperate with the DEA. However, Coplin fails to indicate how the grand jury material
would support his theory, and he certainly does not demonstrate a particularized need that
outweighs the public interest in secrecy.
In sum, this appeal presents “no substantial question,” see 3rd Cir. LAR 27.4 and
I.O.P. 10.6, and thus we will summarily affirm the District Court’s order. Coplin’s
“Motion for Transcript of Grand Jury Minutes” and his “Motion for Judgment,” filed in
this Court on August 4, 2005 and October 14, 2005, respectively, are denied.
3