United States v. Eliely , 276 F. App'x 270 ( 2008 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED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    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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      Before a prisoner may be released on bail
    pending   a    collateral   attack    on   his    conviction,      he   must   show
    substantial      constitutional      claims      on   which   he    has   a    high
    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).                Eliely fails to meet this
    standard.     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
    1
    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).
    2
    We also deny Eliely’s motion to expedite as moot and deny his
    motion for summary relief.
    - 2 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 19-1693

Citation Numbers: 276 F. App'x 270

Judges: Niemeyer, Motz, Hamilton

Filed Date: 5/2/2008

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024