United States v. Thomas E. Swann ( 1999 )


Menu:
  • UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    v.                                                                    No. 99-4459
    THOMAS EUGENE SWANN, SR.,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
    Andre M. Davis, District Judge.
    (CR-97-128, CA-99-991-AMD)
    Submitted: August 3, 1999
    Decided: September 17, 1999
    Before MURNAGHAN and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges,
    and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.
    _________________________________________________________________
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    _________________________________________________________________
    COUNSEL
    Thomas Eugene Swann, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Lynne Ann Battaglia,
    United States Attorney, Harvey Ellis Eisenberg, Assistant United
    States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
    _________________________________________________________________
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
    Local Rule 36(c).
    OPINION
    PER CURIAM:
    Thomas Swann appeals the district court order denying his request
    for release on bail pending the disposition of his motion filed under
    
    28 U.S.C.A. § 2255
     (West. Supp. 1999). A denial of bail is an appeal-
    able collateral order. See United States v. Smith, 
    835 F.2d 1048
    , 1049-
    50 (3d Cir. 1987); Cherek v. United States, 
    767 F.2d 335
    , 337 (7th
    Cir. 1985). A person seeking interim release during pursuit of § 2255
    relief, however, faces a formidable barrier created by the fact of con-
    viction and the government's interest in executing its judgment. "[I]n
    the absence of exceptional circumstances . . . the court will not grant
    bail prior to the ultimate final decision unless[the applicant] presents
    not merely a clear case on the law, . . . but a clear, and readily evident,
    case on the facts." Glynn v. Donnelly, 
    470 F.2d 95
    , 98 (1st Cir. 1972)
    (citation omitted); see also Martin v. Solem, 
    801 F.2d 324
    , 329 (8th
    Cir. 1986).
    Having reviewed the record, we find that Swann has failed to meet
    this burden. We therefore affirm the district court's order denying
    Swann's request for release on bail. Swann's motion for release on
    bail pending appeal is denied. 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
    2