UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-6051
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
GRADY WILLIAM POWERS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina,
at Bryson City. Martin K. Reidinger, District Judge. (2:93-cr-00019-MR-1)
Submitted: April 25, 2019 Decided: April 30, 2019
Before FLOYD and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Grady William Powers, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Grady William Powers was convicted by a jury of 10 counts of aggravated sexual
abuse of a minor, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2241(c) (2012), and sentenced in 1994 to
480 months in prison. United States v. Powers, 59 F.3d 1460 (4th Cir. 1995) (affirming
convictions). This appeal arises from a recent motion Powers filed in the district court
seeking the unsealing and disclosure of testimony and evidence presented to the grand
jury that indicted him; he contended there was a “real and concrete probability” that
misleading testimony influenced the grand jury’s decision to indict him. The district
court denied the motion and Powers’ subsequent motion for reconsideration, noting that
Powers had no pending collateral attacks against his conviction and concluding that he
had not shown a particularized need for the grand jury material. Powers appeals. We
review the district court’s denial of his motion for an abuse of discretion. See Douglas
Oil Co. of California v. Petrol Stops Northwest, 441 U.S. 211, 223, 228-29 (1979).
Grand jury proceedings are generally secret. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(2);
Douglas Oil Co. of California, 441 U.S. at 218-19. The exceptions to that rule are
limited, see Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(3), and available only when the party seeking grand
jury material demonstrates a “particularized need” for the material by showing that (1)
the material is needed to prevent a possible injustice in another judicial proceeding, (2)
the need for disclosure outweighs the need for secrecy, and (3) the request is limited to
the material needed. Douglas Oil Co. of California, 441 U.S. at 222 & n.12. Because
Powers has no pending proceedings challenging his conviction, and because his request
for materials is sweeping rather than specific, the district court did not abuse its discretion
2
in finding that he failed to make the necessary showing. We note, moreover, that because
the trial jury found Powers guilty on all counts, see Powers, 59 F.3d at 1463, any errors
in the grand jury’s decision to indict him were harmless. See United States v. Mechanik,
475 U.S. 66, 70 (1986).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3