USA v. Detroit Hines

Filing

USA v. Detroit Hines

Doc. 0

Case: 10-10138

Document: 00511210532

Page: 1

Date Filed: 08/20/2010

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED
N o . 10-10138 S u m m a r y Calendar August 20, 2010 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

U N IT E D STATES OF AMERICA, P la in t if f -A p p e lle e v. D E T R O I T HINES, also known as Li'l Nut, D e fe n d a n t -A p p e lla n t

A p p e a l from the United States District Court fo r the Northern District of Texas U S D C No.4:06-CR-88-3

B e fo r e HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. P E R CURIAM:* I n 2007, Detroit Hines, federal prisoner #35457-177, was convicted of s e v e r a l cocaine and firearms offenses, including conspiracy to possess with the in t e n t to distribute more than 50 grams of crack cocaine. In December 2009, at a time when he had no actions pending, Hines filed a pro se motion requesting d is c lo s u r e of the grand jury transcripts, minutes, or testimony relating to his in d ic t m e n t. The district court construed the motion as arising under Federal R u le of Criminal Procedure 6(e)(3)(E)(ii) and denied the motion. Hines has
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
*

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 10-10138

Document: 00511210532 Page: 2 No. 10-10138

Date Filed: 08/20/2010

a p p e a le d , and the Government has moved for dismissal or for summary a ffir m a n c e . Alternatively, the Government moves for an extension of time in w h ic h to file a brief. It is questionable whether Hines's motion had a valid jurisdictional basis in the district court. See United States v. Carvajal, 989 F.2d 170, 170 (5th Cir. 1 9 9 3 ). However, even if we assume that the district court correctly exercised ju r is d ic t io n under the rule cited above, the district court did not abuse its d is c r e t io n in denying the motion because Hines failed to show a particularized n e e d for the grand jury materials. See United States v. Miramontez, 995 F.2d 56, 5 7 -5 8 (5th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, the Government's motion for summary

a ffir m a n c e is granted. The Government's alternative motions are denied. A F F IR M E D .

2