IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 92-7451
Conference Calendar
__________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MIGUEL CARVAJAL,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. CR-C-89-190(01)
- - - - - - - - - -
March 17, 1993
Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Miguel Carvajal appeals the district court's denial of his
motion for grand jury transcripts. His appeal is frivolous.
See 5th Cir. Loc. R. 42.2.
Carvajal provides no jurisdictional basis for his motion to
inspect the grand jury minutes. The judgment convicting Carvajal
has been entered. He did not directly appeal that judgment. The
merits of his § 2255 motion have also been addressed by the
district court and dismissed when the district court denied his
*
Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions
that have no precedential value and merely decide particular
cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes
needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal
profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the Court has determined
that this opinion should not be published.
No. 92-7451
-2-
motion. Because the cause was terminated, the district court
lacked jurisdiction to grant his motion requesting grand jury
transcripts. See, e.g., First Nationwide Bank v. Summer House
Joint Venture, 902 F.2d 1197, 1199 (5th Cir. 1990).
More important, Carvajal did not allege in his § 2255
motion, nor does he now specifically allege, any irregularity in
the grand jury proceedings. It is well established that this
Court need not consider arguments on appeal that were not raised
before the district court in a § 2255 petition. See United
States v. Cates, 952 F.2d 149, 152 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 112
S.Ct. 2319 (1992). Grand jury proceedings are normally secret;
Carvajal cannot now conduct a fishing expedition to see if he can
find something in the grand jury minutes that might support
further relief under § 2255. See United States v. Short, 671
F.2d 178, 183-187 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 457 U.S. 1119 (1982).
The appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous.