petitioner was a big drug dealer,” and that the government was engaged in a “vindictive prosecution.” The motion did not expressly request any relief from Coplin’s criminal conviction or sentence. In a one-sentence order entered June 28, 2005, the District Court denied the motion. Coplin timely filed this appeal. As a threshold matter, we are satisfied that we have appellate jurisdiction, as the denial of the request for disclosure of grand jury materials in this case qualifies as an appealable final order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. See United States v. Miramontez, 995 F.2d 56, 59 n. 4 (5th Cir.1993) (“Orders granting or denying disclosure of grand jury materials for use in civil actions are appealable.”); In re Grand Jury Investigation No. 78-181, 642 F.2d 1184, 1187 (9th Cir.1981) (<HOLDING>), ajfd sub nom. United States v. Sells
holding that an issue is preserved for appeal where the issue was sufficiently raised for the court to rule on it   holding that there can be only one final appealable order holding that rule 6e motion filed after criminal proceedings terminated was independent proceeding and that order entered was final and appealable under  1291 because it conclusively resolved disclosure issue which was only issue raised holding that a rehearing order was not final or appealable holding that the rule 21 severance rendered the district court verdict a final and appealable judgment under 28 usc  1291