ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

*791 After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Appellant challenges the district court’s denial of his Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e)(3)(E)(ii) request for grand jury documents. That subsection allows for the disclosure of grand jury documents “at the request of a defendant who shows that a ground may exist to dismiss the indictment because of a matter that occurred before the grand jury....” The district court found that Appellant had not offered any real explanation for the request and, as a result, had not met his burden. 1 Order, 1 (D. Kan. Apr. 20, 2006). The decision to disclose grand jury proceedings is firmly within the district court’s discretion. See Douglas Oil Co. of Calif. v. Petrol Stops Nw., 441 U.S. 211, 223, 99 S.Ct. 1667, 60 L.Ed.2d 156 (1979) (“Moreover, we emphasize that a court called upon to determine whether grand jury transcripts should be released necessarily is infused with substantial discretion.”).

We have reviewed Appellant’s brief, the record, and the district court’s order. We cannot say that the district court abused its discretion when denying Appellant’s motion, and we therefore AFFIRM the district court’s denial of the motion. Appellant’s motion for transmission and inspection of the record is DENIED.