Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
- Rechtsrecherche mit Zugriff auf über 1 Million Quellen
- Dokumentenautomatisierung
- Mandatsverwaltung
- Gehostet in der EU und der Schweiz
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
07-10322•Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. Tommy Merrel Jackson, also known as TJ
07-10322Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit31.01.2008
* 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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-10322
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
TOMMY MERREL JACKSON, also known as TJ
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:95-CR-148-1
Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Tommy Merrel Jackson, federal prisoner # 27477-077, appeals the district
court’s denial of his motion for grand jury materials, which was filed pursuant
to FED. R. CRIM. P. 6. The Government argues that the court lacked jurisdiction
to consider Jackson’s motion because it is best construed as a successive 28
U.S.C. § 2255 motion. This argument is unavailing because the motion does not
challenge Jackson’s conviction or sentence, nor does it seek to challenge the
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
January 31, 2008
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
-- 1 of 2 --
No. 07-10322
2
disposition of his first § 2255 motion. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255; Gonzalez v. Crosby,
545 U.S. 524, 532 (2005).
Jackson’s argument that the district court erred by denying his request for
grand jury materials is likewise unavailing. Jackson has not shown a
particularized need for these materials. See United States v. Miramontez, 995
F.2d 56, 59 (5th Cir. 1993); In re McDermott & Co., Inc., 622 F.2d 166, 172 (5th
Cir. 1980). Consequently, he has not shown that the district court abused its
discretion by denying his motion. See Miramontez, 995 F.2d at 59. The
judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
-- 2 of 2 --
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.