conviction by proving the falsity of Defendant’s testimony about the above two emails. 2. Misuse of the Grand Jury Defendant also alleges that the grand jury’s investigation was a mere pretext to lay the groundwork for a perjury indictment. Defendant argues that hailing him before the grand jury to establish the foundation for a perjury conviction was an improper purpose for the grand jury. See United States v. Under Seal, 714 F.2d 347, 349 (4th Cir.1983) (“[Pjractiees which do not aid the grand jury in its quest for information bearing on the decision to indict are forbidden.”). As such, Defendant claims that his testimony was immaterial to a grand jury investigation and cannot form the basis for a false declaration charge. See Brown v. United States, 245 F.2d 549, 554 (8th Cir.1957) (<HOLDING>). Defendant cites several circumstances in
holding that where witness refused to take the oath and testify his grand jury testimony should not have been admitted because he was not subject to cross examination before the grand jury holding that in the situation of a possible dismissal of an indictment because of possible grand jury tampering  only where knowing perjury relating to a material matter has been presented to the grand jury should the trial judge dismiss an otherwise valid indictment holding the trial court erred in ordering the transcription of grand jury proceedings so that it could intervene in the operations of the grand jury holding that right was available in grand jury proceedings holding that a defendants false grand jury testimony was insufficient to establish perjury where the defendant was called before the grand jury for the mere purpose of laying the foundation for a perjury prosecution such testimony was immaterial to the grand jurys purpose