In these consolidated appeals, federal prisoner Michael Grady appeals from final orders entered in the District Court 1 for the Eastern District of Missouri denying a motion for grand jury records and a subsequent motion for the district court to recognize its jurisdiction to review his constitutional claims. Having carefully reviewed the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm. Even assuming Grady had a legal basis for filing these motions (he already has had a direct criminal appeal and has brought a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion), he failed to set forth a particularized need for disclosure of grand jury materials, see United States v. Broyles, 37 F.3d 1314, 1318 (8th Cir. 1994), cert, denied, 514 U.S. 1056, 115 S.Ct. 1441, 131 L.Ed.2d 320 (1995), and all of Grady’s arguments in the proceedings underlying these appeals raise issues that were or should have been raised on direct appeal, cf. Thompson v. United States, 7 F.3d 1377, 1379 (8th Cir. 1993) (per curiam), cert, denied, 511 U.S. 1010,114 S.Ct. 1383,128 L.Ed.2d 58 (1994) and 511 U.S. 1038, 114 S.Ct. 1556, 128 L.Ed.2d 204 (1994); Dall v. United States, 957 F.2d 571, 572 (8th Cir. 1992) (per curiam). Thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Grady’s motions for grand jury records and for the district court to recognize its jurisdiction to review his constitutional claims.

Accordingly we affirm, see 8th Cir. R. 47B, and we deny Grady’s motion to supplement the record on appeal with grand jury records.