In 2007, Detroit Hines, federal prisoner # 35457-177, was convicted of several cocaine and firearms offenses, including conspiracy to possess with the intent 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 disclosure of the grand jury transcripts, minutes, or testimony relating to his indictment. The district court construed the motion as arising under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e)(3)(E)(ii) and denied the motion. Hines has appealed, and the Government has moved for dismissal or for summary affirmance. Alternatively, the Government moves for an extension of time in which 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. 1993). However, even if we assume that the district court correctly exercised jurisdiction under the rule cited above, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion because Hines failed to show a particularized need for the grand jury materials. See United States v. Miramontez, 995 F.2d 56, 57-58 (5th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is granted. The Government’s alternative motions are denied.

AFFIRMED.