United States v. Alvarez, 646 F. App'x 619

Jose Alvarez was indicted by a grand jury in 2010 on drug conspiracy and distribution charges and later convicted by a jury and sentenced to 360 months.
Alvarez’s direct appeal of his sentence was denied (affirmed by this court and cert. denied). He then sought grand jury transcripts to prepare a §2255 motion alleging improper venue and vindictive/selective prosecution.
The government initially argued the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider Alvarez’s motion for grand jury transcripts under Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e).
The district court nevertheless reached the merits, denied Alvarez’s motion for production of grand jury transcripts under the Douglas Oil disclosure standard, and denied reconsideration.
Alvarez appealed, arguing the district court improperly acted as an opposing party by reaching the merits and that his claims met the Douglas test for disclosure.
The Tenth Circuit reviewed de novo the court’s authority to reach the merits and for abuse of discretion the denial under Rule 6(e), and affirmed the district court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court could reach the merits despite the government’s jurisdictional defense	Alvarez: court was limited to addressing only the jurisdictional defense raised by government	Government: district court initially challenged jurisdiction; implicit position that merits review was unnecessary	Court: rejected Alvarez’s limitation argument; court may apply correct law sua sponte and may affirm on any record-supported ground
Whether Alvarez met the Douglas Oil test to obtain grand jury transcripts under Rule 6(e)	Alvarez: transcripts needed to support claims of improper venue and vindictive/selective prosecution	Government: disclosure not warranted; alleged errors were procedural/technical and harmless	Court: abuse-of-discretion review; held Douglas not met — alleged errors were harmless and did not implicate fundamental unfairness of grand jury process; affirmed denial

Douglas Oil Co. v. Petrol Stops Nw., 441 U.S. 211 (established test for grand jury transcript disclosure)
Kamen v. Kemper Fin. Servs., Inc., 500 U.S. 90 (courts may apply correct law even if parties omit arguments)
Stan Lee Media, Inc. v. Walt Disney Co., 774 F.3d 1292 (appellate courts may affirm on any grounds supported by the record)
United States v. Hasan, 609 F.3d 1121 (de novo review of jurisdictional authority to reach merits)
In re Grand Jury 95-1, 118 F.3d 1433 (abuse-of-discretion standard for Rule 6(e) denials)
United States v. Hillman, 642 F.3d 929 (harmlessness analysis; distinction between procedural errors and fundamental grand jury unfairness)
United States v. Alvarez, [citation="565 F. App'x 709"] (prior appellate decision affirming Alvarez’s sentence)