F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES CO URT O F APPEALS
October 10, 2006
TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES OF AM ERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee, No. 06-3165
v. (D.C. No. 03-10175-M LB)
CLIFFORD HOLLIN GSW ORTH, (D . Kan.)
Defendant-Appellant.
OR D ER AND JUDGM ENT *
Before K ELLY, M cK AY, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument.
Appellant challenges the district court’s denial of his Federal Rule of
Criminal Procedure 6(e)(3)(E)(ii) request for grand jury documents. That
subsection allows for the disclosure of grand jury documents “at the request of a
defendant who show s that a ground may exist to dismiss the indictment because
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
of a matter that occurred before the grand jury . . . .” The district court found that
Appellant had not offered any real explanation for the request and, as a result, had
not met his burden. 1 Order, 1 (D. Kan. Apr. 20, 2006). The decision to disclose
grand jury proceedings is firmly within the district court’s discretion. See
Douglas Oil Co. of Calif. v. Petrol Stops Nw., 441 U.S. 211, 223 (1979)
(“M oreover, we emphasize that a court called upon to determine whether grand
jury transcripts should be released necessarily is infused with substantial
discretion.”).
W e have reviewed Appellant’s brief, the record, and the district court’s
order. W e cannot say that the district court abused its discretion when denying
Appellant’s motion, and we therefore AFFIRM the district court’s denial of the
motion. Appellant’s motion for transmission and inspection of the record is
DENIED.
Entered for the Court
M onroe G. M cKay
Circuit Judge
1
Appellant argues that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction
for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(f). He seeks
disclosure of grand jury documents— a matter governed by Federal Rule of
Criminal Procedure 6(e)(3)(E)(ii)— to support his jurisdictional argument. W e
note that the record on appeal clearly reflects the three-count indictment signed
by the grand jury foreman.
-2-