United States v. McDaniel ( 2019 )

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT April 8, 2019
_________________________________
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. No. 18-3107
(D.C. No. 2:07-CR-20168-JWL-22)
KEITH McDANIEL, (D. Kan.)
Defendant - Appellant.
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
_________________________________
Before BRISCOE, MORITZ, and EID, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
Keith McDaniel appeals from the district court’s denial of his Fed. R. Crim. P.
6(e) motion to release grand jury materials and his subsequent motion for
reconsideration. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we vacate the
district court’s orders and remand with instructions to dismiss for failure to establish
jurisdiction.
*
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding
precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral
estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with
Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
BACKGROUND
In 2009, Keith McDaniel was convicted of participating in a drug-trafficking
conspiracy and was sentenced to 360 months’ imprisonment. United States v.
McDaniel, 433 F. App’x 701, 702, 704 (10th Cir. 2011) (per curiam). He
unsuccessfully pursued a direct appeal, see id. at 705, and a post-conviction attack
under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, see United States v. McDaniel, 555 F. App’x 771, 773
(10th Cir. 2014).
This appeal arises out of an April 2018 motion seeking release of grand jury
materials that McDaniel filed under Rule 6(e)(3)(E)(ii). He asserted that he needed
certain grand jury testimony to prove prosecutorial overreaching and a lack of
evidence of his participation in the conspiracy. Without waiting for a government
response, the district court denied the motion on the merits, holding that McDaniel
had failed to show a particularized need for the materials and had failed to overcome
the presumption against disclosure of grand jury materials. It then summarily denied
McDaniel’s motion to reconsider.
DISCUSSION
On appeal, the government asserts that the district court lacked jurisdiction to
consider McDaniel’s motions. It argues that criminal jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3231 ends upon the district court’s entry of judgment, and it asserts that it can
identify no other jurisdictional basis for the district court to consider the
Rule 6(e)(3)(E)(ii) motion. Although he filed a reply brief, McDaniel did not
respond to the government’s jurisdictional argument.
2
“We are obligated to satisfy ourselves as to our own jurisdiction and this
obligation extends to an examination of the federal district court’s jurisdiction as
well.” Comanche Indian Tribe of Okla. v. Hovis, 53 F.3d 298, 302 (10th Cir. 1995).
It is McDaniel’s burden to establish that the district court had jurisdiction over his
motions. United States v. Garcia-Herrera, 894 F.3d 1219, 1220 (10th Cir. 2018).
In Garcia-Herrera, we concluded that a prisoner had failed to show that the
district court had jurisdiction to consider his motion to compel his former attorney to
produce his file. Id. We rejected the prisoner’s reliance on 18 U.S.C. § 3231,
stating, “§ 3231 by itself doesn’t give the district court jurisdiction over all
post-conviction motions, particularly motions filed in anticipation of filing a § 2255
motion.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). We also cited authority approving
the proposition that “‘the entry of final judgment in the case ended the court’s § 3231
jurisdiction.’” Id. (quoting United States v. Wahi, 850 F.3d 296, 300 (7th Cir.
2017)).
In light of Garcia-Herrera, we cannot conclude that § 3231 afforded the
district court jurisdiction over the Rule 6(e)(3)(E)(ii) motion. See also United States
v. Asakevich, 810 F.3d 418, 420-21 (6th Cir. 2016) (concluding that § 3231 does not
provide jurisdiction for a district court to consider a motion to extend the time to file
a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion); United States v. Spaulding, 802 F.3d 1110, 1112
(10th Cir. 2015) (concluding that Ҥ 3231 does not, standing alone, confer upon a
district court jurisdiction to set aside a previously imposed criminal judgment that
contains a term of imprisonment”). And McDaniel failed to respond to the
3
government’s argument and has not identified any other authority that would
allow the district court to exercise jurisdiction over his motion. He therefore has
not satisfied his burden of showing that the district court had jurisdiction. See
Garcia-Herrera, 894 F.3d at 1220-21 (“Even a pro se appellant has an affirmative
obligation to inform us in the opening brief of the basis for the district court’s
jurisdiction.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
CONCLUSION
Because McDaniel fails to assert a valid basis for the district court’s
jurisdiction, we vacate the district court’s orders denying his Rule 6(e)(3)(E)(ii)
motion and motion for reconsideration and remand with directions to dismiss.
Entered for the Court
Nancy L. Moritz
Circuit Judge
4