United States v. John Lee Colins
676 F. App'x 830
11th Cir.2017Background
- John Collins, pro se, sought grand jury transcripts and related materials used to obtain his indictment.
- The district court denied Collins’s request for grand jury materials and later denied his motion for reconsideration.
- Collins filed a notice of appeal challenging both the denial of transcripts and the denial of reconsideration.
- The Government argued Collins’s appeal from the grand-jury-transcript denial was untimely.
- The Eleventh Circuit found Collins’s appeal of the transcript order untimely and dismissed that part; it reviewed the reconsideration denial for abuse of discretion.
- On the merits, the court held Collins failed to show the required compelling, particularized need or a narrowly tailored request for grand jury materials.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of appeal from order denying grand jury transcripts | Collins filed timely enough to preserve appeal | Government: appeal filed after 14-day deadline and after allowable extension | Appeal untimely; dismissed |
| Whether motion for reconsideration tolled appeal deadline | Collins’s later motion should toll appeal period | Govt/district: motion filed after 14-day appeal window so no tolling | Motion filed late; tolling unavailable |
| Whether district abused discretion in denying reconsideration under Rule 6(e) | Collins needed transcripts to prove innocence, alleging perjury and misconduct | District: Collins failed to show particularized, compelling need and request was not narrowly limited | Denial affirmed — Collins did not meet Aisenberg/Cole standard |
| Scope of requested materials | Collins said he needed Kirlew’s testimony and other evidence used before the grand jury | Government/district: request was broader than necessary and speculative | Request was not limited to narrowly tailored materials and so was denied |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Lopez, 562 F.3d 1309 (11th Cir. 2009) (standard for reviewing procedural rules interpretation)
- United States v. Vicaria, 963 F.2d 1412 (11th Cir. 1992) (motion for reconsideration tolls appeal period only if filed within appeal window)
- United States v. Simms, 385 F.3d 1347 (11th Cir. 2004) (denial of motion to reconsider reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870 (11th Cir. 2008) (pro se briefs read liberally; unbriefed issues abandoned)
- United States v. Aisenberg, 358 F.3d 1327 (11th Cir. 2004) (three-part test for grand jury disclosure under Rule 6(e))
- United States v. Cole, 755 F.2d 748 (11th Cir. 1985) (general or unsubstantiated allegations do not satisfy particularized-need requirement)