United States Court of Appeals
                             FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
                                     ___________

                                     No. 97-2202
                                     ___________

United States of America,                 *
                                          *
             Appellee,                    *
                                          *
      v.                                  * Appeal from the United States
                                          * District Court for the
Oliver Lawrence Beasley,                  * District of Minnesota.
                                          *
             Appellant.                   *      [UNPUBLISHED]
                                     ___________

                            Submitted: February 13, 1998
                                Filed: March 26, 1998
                                    ___________

Before FAGG, BEAM, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.
                           ___________

PER CURIAM.


       After Oliver Beasley was indicted on federal charges, his attorney requested a
transcript of the grand jury proceedings. The request was granted as to the grand jury
testimony of all persons who would testify at trial. A jury subsequently found Beasley
guilty as charged, and his convictions were affirmed. United States v. Beasley, 

(8th Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 

(1997). Beasley then filed a
motion for disclosure of transcripts of the grand jury testimony of all government
witnesses who testified at his trial, asserting that he needed the transcripts to prepare
a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, and that “quite a few witnesses” gave inconsistent
testimony at trial. The district court1 denied Beasley&s motion, and he appeals.

       Contrary to the government&s argument, we conclude the district court&s order
is appealable. See United States v. Miramontez, 

, 59 n.4 (5th Cir. 1993).
We find no abuse of discretion in the district court&s decision to deny disclosure
because Beasley failed to demonstrate a “particularized need” for the transcripts. See
In re Grand Jury Investigation, 

, 354 (8th Cir.) (standard of review), cert.
denied, 

(1995); 

; Thomas v. United States,

, 657 (8th Cir. 1979).

      Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

      A true copy.

             Attest:

                     CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.




      1
      The Honorable David S. Doty, United States District Judge for the District of
Minnesota.

                                          -2-