Tenth Circuit Clarifies: No Post‑Judgment Right to Unseal or Obtain Records Absent a Particularized Legal Need or Pending Proceeding — United States v. Geddes

Introduction

In United States v. Geddes, No. 24-4121 (10th Cir. Sept. 10, 2025), the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of a wide‑ranging pro se motion seeking to unseal “all” sealed materials and compel disclosure of 37 categories of records from numerous sources, including agencies and private parties. The panel (Judges Hartz, Baldock, and Phillips) held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying relief, primarily because:

the criminal docket materials Mr. Geddes referenced (e.g., the indictment) were not sealed at the time of his request,
he identified no legal basis for access to additional criminal case materials after exhausting direct and collateral review,
he did not satisfy any exception to grand jury secrecy under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e), and
many requested records were outside the control of the criminal court (i.e., held by nonparties) and unsupported by any cognizable ground for production.

The case arises from Mr. Geddes’s federal convictions for various tax offenses. After a successful but limited direct appeal concerning aspects of restitution and supervised release conditions, and an unsuccessful 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion (for which no certificate of appealability was sought from the Tenth Circuit), Mr. Geddes pivoted to a capacious records request styled as a motion to unseal and compel disclosure. The district court denied it as “vague and overbroad,” and the Tenth Circuit affirmed.

Summary of the Opinion

Exercising appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, the Tenth Circuit reviewed the denial for abuse of discretion, the standard applicable to both sealing/unsealing decisions and requests for transcripts or other court records. Citing United States v. Bacon, 950 F.3d 1286 (10th Cir. 2020), United States v. Schneider, 559 F. App’x 770 (10th Cir. 2014), In re Grand Jury 95-1, 118 F.3d 1433 (10th Cir. 1997), and United States v. Green, 483 F.2d 469 (10th Cir. 1973), the court concluded:

There was nothing to unseal: while the indictment and arrest warrant were initially sealed, the record showed they had been unsealed. Denial of an “unseal” motion where nothing remains sealed is not an abuse of discretion.
There was no entitlement to transcripts or other criminal case records: with direct appeal and a § 2255 motion complete, and no authorization sought to file a second or successive § 2255 motion, Mr. Geddes offered no apparent legal purpose for obtaining such materials.
Grand jury secrecy controls: to the extent the request implicated grand jury records, Mr. Geddes failed to show any Rule 6(e)(3) exception applied.
Nonparty records fall outside the criminal court’s ambit: the motion identified no viable legal ground to compel production of records held by nonparties, including agencies and private individuals, in the context of a closed criminal case.

The panel also rejected Mr. Geddes’s attempt—via an attachment to his opening brief—to relitigate the validity of his convictions. Because he already pursued a direct appeal and one § 2255 motion, any further collateral attack would require prior authorization to file a second or successive § 2255 motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h). The court affirmed and denied his motion to supplement the record.

Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

United States v. Bacon, 950 F.3d 1286 (10th Cir. 2020): The Tenth Circuit reiterated that decisions whether to seal or unseal records are reviewed for abuse of discretion. Bacon underscores a district court’s broad case‑management authority in resolving access motions, including balancing interests where applicable. Geddes relies on Bacon for the standard of review and for the deference owed to the district court’s denials of expansive, non‑specific access requests.
United States v. Schneider, 559 F. App’x 770 (10th Cir. 2014): This nonprecedential case supports reviewing denials of transcript requests for abuse of discretion and reflects the broader principle that a convicted defendant is not entitled to transcripts or records at public expense absent a pending proceeding and a demonstrated need. In Geddes, the absence of any live proceeding (no direct appeal, no pending or authorized successive § 2255) meant no apparent legal purpose for wholesale record production.
In re Grand Jury 95-1, 118 F.3d 1433 (10th Cir. 1997): A cornerstone of grand jury secrecy in the Circuit, In re Grand Jury 95-1 affirms that disclosure of grand jury materials is tightly constrained and reviewed for abuse of discretion. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e) sets narrow exceptions; applicants must show a “particularized need” that fits the rule. Geddes applies that framework: Mr. Geddes did not identify any qualifying exception, so disclosure was properly denied.
United States v. Green, 483 F.2d 469 (10th Cir. 1973): Green stands for the proposition that defendants are not entitled to personal copies of presentence reports and that courts may restrict access given the confidential nature of such materials. Geddes cites Green (alongside other authorities) to reinforce the discretion courts have in denying sweeping requests for sensitive sentencing and criminal file materials, particularly post‑judgment.

The panel also invoked the governing statutes and rules: 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (final decision jurisdiction); Rule 6(e) (grand jury secrecy and limited exceptions); and 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h) (gatekeeping for second or successive motions).

Legal Reasoning

Standard of review and posture matter. The court began with the controlling standard—abuse of discretion—for sealing/unsealing and record/transcript requests. Deference is heightened where the movant provides no focused legal theory or pending vehicle for relief.
No live controversy with respect to “unsealing.” Although indictments and arrest warrants are often sealed at return/arrest and later unsealed, here the docket reflected that the materials Mr. Geddes spotlighted had been unsealed. A request to “unseal” documents that are already public presents nothing for the court to do; denying such relief does not constitute an abuse of discretion.
No entitlement to criminal case records without a pending need. Mr. Geddes sought search warrants, seized records, grand jury transcripts, and hearing transcripts. But he had already exhausted direct review and his initial § 2255 motion. He had not asked the Tenth Circuit for authorization to file a successive § 2255. In that posture, there was “no apparent purpose or legal basis” for furnishing the records. The court’s reasoning reflects a bedrock principle: post‑judgment record requests must be tethered to a concrete, legally cognizable need in a live proceeding.
Grand jury secrecy remains the default; exceptions must be proven. To the extent Mr. Geddes sought grand jury materials, he did not show how any Rule 6(e)(3) exception applied. Absent a particularized, rule‑based justification, courts cannot order disclosure.
Nonparty and non‑case records fall outside a closed criminal docket. Many categories Mr. Geddes listed—private dental patient records, familial trust administration, Bureau of Prisons and IRS records, and even civil Tax Court matters—are held by nonparties or lie outside the criminal case. In a closed criminal matter, the district court lacked both a substantive basis and procedural vehicle to compel those materials. The motion’s breadth and vagueness underscored the absence of a cognizable legal hook.
Collateral attack must follow § 2255(h) gatekeeping. The panel declined to entertain Mr. Geddes’s embedded merits challenges to his convictions. Having completed direct review and one § 2255 motion, he must seek authorization under § 2255(h) to file another. That statutory gatekeeping requirement bars end‑run attempts via record‑access motions on a closed criminal docket.

Impact and Practical Significance

Although issued as a nonprecedential order and judgment, the decision is persuasive and signals several practice‑shaping points in the Tenth Circuit:

Particularized need is essential post‑judgment. Defendants cannot use sweeping “unseal and disclose everything” motions as discovery surrogates after their cases end. Courts will deny requests not anchored to a pending, nonfrivolous claim that actually requires the records.
Mootness defeats “unsealing” when the docket is already open. Counsel should verify the sealing status before moving; where records are already unsealed, relief is unavailable.
Grand jury secrecy is robust. Requests for grand jury materials must satisfy Rule 6(e)(3) exceptions with specific facts. General assertions of fairness or public interest are insufficient.
Nonparty records require the right forum and process. Materials held by agencies or private actors typically require separate legal avenues (e.g., FOIA/Privacy Act for federal agencies, civil subpoenas in a live civil case, or state‑court process for private records). A closed criminal docket is not a catch‑all vehicle.
Transcripts at public expense are tied to pending proceedings. While not cited explicitly, the decision is consonant with 28 U.S.C. § 753(f): to obtain transcripts at government expense, a movant generally must show a pending nonfrivolous proceeding and that the transcript is necessary to decide the issue. Absent such a showing, transcript requests will fail.
Pathways for further relief are narrow and structured. To reopen merits issues, defendants must meet the stringent § 2255(h) criteria (newly discovered evidence establishing actual innocence, or a new retroactive rule of constitutional law). Record‑access motions cannot substitute for that gatekeeping.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Abuse of discretion: A deferential standard of appellate review. The appellate court asks whether the district court made a clear error of judgment or applied the wrong legal standard. If reasonable judges could disagree, the district court’s decision stands.
Sealing vs. unsealing: Some filings (e.g., indictments pre‑arrest) may be temporarily sealed for investigative reasons. After the need passes, courts often unseal them. A motion to unseal targets materials still under seal; if they’re already public, the motion is effectively moot.
Grand jury secrecy (Rule 6(e)): Grand jury proceedings are secret to protect witnesses, targets, and the integrity of investigations. Disclosure is allowed only under narrow rule‑based exceptions, usually requiring a “particularized need” shown with specifics tied to a live legal issue.
Transcripts and records post‑conviction: Defendants do not have a general right to free transcripts or wholesale access to court files after judgment. Access typically depends on a pending appeal or collateral proceeding and a demonstrated necessity for specific items.
Presentence reports (PSRs): PSRs are sensitive, probation‑prepared documents for sentencing. Courts closely control access; defendants generally may review them with counsel but are not entitled to personal copies, particularly post‑sentencing.
Certificate of appealability (COA): To appeal denial of a § 2255 motion, a federal prisoner must obtain a COA by making a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Without a COA, the appellate court lacks jurisdiction over the § 2255 appeal.
Second or successive § 2255 motions: After one § 2255 motion, a prisoner needs prior authorization from the court of appeals to file another, which is granted only in narrow circumstances (new, compelling evidence of innocence or a new retroactive constitutional rule).
Nonprecedential decisions: The Tenth Circuit’s order states it is not binding precedent (except for law‑of‑the‑case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel), but it may be cited for persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.

Conclusion

United States v. Geddes reinforces a pragmatic and disciplined approach to post‑judgment access motions. The Tenth Circuit’s affirmance rests on three pillars: (1) unsealing relief is unavailable when the records are already public; (2) broad requests for transcripts and records require a tether to a pending proceeding and a concrete, legally cognizable need; and (3) grand jury secrecy and limits on compelling nonparty records continue to constrain post‑conviction “fishing expeditions.” For litigants and counsel, the decision underscores the importance of specificity, proper forum selection, and procedural posture. For courts, it affirms substantial discretion to deny overbroad or purposeless requests and to channel collateral challenges through the tightly cabined mechanisms Congress and the Rules provide, especially § 2255(h) for successive petitions. In short, Geddes offers persuasive guidance that, after judgment, access to criminal case materials is the exception—not the rule—and must be justified with precision and legal necessity.