Reuven Tenamee appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to compel production of grand jury testimony. We have reviewed the record and find no abuse of discretion, as Tenamee demonstrated no particularized need for production. See Dennis v. United States, 384 U.S. 855, 872, 86 S.Ct. 1840, 16 L.Ed.2d 973 (1966). Accordingly, we affirm the order of the district court. See United States v. Tenamee, No. CR-89-235-JFM (D.Md. Sept. 15, 2004). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED