US v. Eliely

Filing 920080502


Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-7368 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. SHAWN ELIELY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (4:04-cr-00078-RAJ) Submitted: April 16, 2008 Decided: May 2, 2008 Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Shawn Eliely, Appellant Pro Se. Scott W. Putney, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Shawn Eliely appeals the district court's order denying his motion for release on recognizance or bail pending the court's consideration of Eliely's post-conviction motion filed under 28 U.S.C. 2255 (2000).1 pending a collateral Before a prisoner may be released on bail attack on his conviction, on which he he must a show high substantial constitutional claims has probability of success, and exceptional circumstances making a grant of bail necessary for the habeas remedy to be effective. See Lee v. Jabe, 989 F.2d 869, 871 (6th Cir. 1993); Calley v. Callaway, 496 F.2d 701, 702 (5th Cir. 1974). standard. Eliely fails to meet this Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order.2 We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED We have jurisdiction over this appeal under the collateral order doctrine. See Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-57 (1949). We also deny Eliely's motion to expedite as moot and deny his motion for summary relief. - 2 2 1

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?