UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

In Re: Grand Jury Subpoena:
GRAND JURY SUBPOENA, No. R91-071

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

and                                                            No. 94-5463

UNDER SEAL,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

UNDER SEAL,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond.
James R. Spencer, District Judge.
(CR-93-28-A-R)

Argued: February 3, 1995

Decided: June 3, 1996

Before HAMILTON and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER,
Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

ARGUED: Thomas P. Vartanian, FRIED, FRANK, HARRIS,
SHRIVER & JACOBSON, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Roger
William Frydrychowski, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond,
Virginia; Clarence Mosley Dunnaville, HILL, TUCKER & MARSH,
Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Jack B. Gordon,
Bruce J. Casino, FRIED, FRANK, HARRIS, SHRIVER & JACOB-
SON, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Helen F. Fahey, United States
Attorney, Richmond, Virginia; Jack B. Patrick, Trial Attorney, Fraud
Section, Criminal Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Appellant challenges the district court's order concerning his
motion to remedy and restrict disclosure of information revealed
before a federal grand jury. We held disposition of this case in abey-
ance pending decision in Finn v. Schiller, No. 94-2373 (Jan. 3, 1996).
Under Finn, although a district court has the authority to enter an
appropriate order of civil or criminal contempt in response to notifica-
tion of such a violation of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e),
there is no private cause of action under the Rule. Therefore, on the
authority of Finn, we vacate the district court's order decided on the
merits of appellant's Rule 6(e) motion, and remand for further pro-
ceedings consistent with that opinion.

VACATED AND REMANDED

                    2
