Opinions of the United
2007 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
6-19-2007
USA v. Pinet
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 06-5016
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007
Recommended Citation
"USA v. Pinet" (2007). 2007 Decisions. Paper 913.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007/913
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 2007 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
CLD-240 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 06-5016
________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
ANGEL MANUEL PINET
a/k/a Jose
Angel Manuel Pinet,
Appellant
____________________________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Crim. No. 97-cr-00169-2)
District Judge: Honorable William W. Caldwell
_______________________________________
Submitted For Possible Summary Action Under Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
May 17, 2007
Before: RENDELL, SMITH AND JORDAN, CIRCUIT JUDGES.
(Filed: June 19, 2007)
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM
Angel Pinet appeals from the order of the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Pennsylvania denying his “Motion for Discovery of Grand Jury
Minutes.” We will affirm the judgment of the District Court.1
Pinet was sentenced to 360 months in prison following his conviction for drug
trafficking offenses. We affirmed. Pinet then filed a § 2255 motion. After appointing
counsel and conducting an evidentiary hearing, the District Court denied relief on the
merits. We denied a certificate of appealability.
In this motion, Pinet states that, despite making Freedom of Information Act
requests to two federal agencies, he did not receive the documents he requested. He
notes his suspicion that the government presented “perjured testimony” to the grand jury,
and he seeks the disclosure of information “relevant to the grand jury” pursuant to
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 6, 12, and 16. Motion at 1-3. The District Court
denied the motion because these rules apply to criminal proceedings, and Pinet has no
such proceedings pending before the District Court. Pinet now appeals.
We agree with the District Court that Pinet cannot use Rule 16 as a vehicle to
obtain the documents he has not been able to obtain via FOIA requests.2 Pinet points to
1
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
2
We note that we also affirmed the District Court’s order denying a similar request
made by Pinet in October 2004 for “tape-recorded transcripts and discovery.” See C.A.
No. 04-4287.
2
no authority to the contrary. Although Pinet argues that he needs the grand jury
documents “to demonstrate his innocence under § 2241,” the record reveals that he had
no habeas petition before the District Court when he filed this motion.
Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court.
3