Case ID: f-appx_86/html/0586-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Mark F. COLEMAN, a/k/a Mark V. Johnson, a/k/a Wakim, a/k/a Y-Kim, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 03-7366.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 11, 2003.
    Decided Feb. 3, 2004.
    Mark F. Coleman, Appellant pro se. Kelly Elizabeth Shackelford, Mark C. Moore, Assistant United States Attorney, Office of the United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(C).
   PER CURIAM.

Mark F. Coleman appeals the district court order denying his motion for release on bond pending resolution of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. A person seeking interim release during pursuit of § 2255 relief faces a formidable barrier created by the fact of conviction and the government’s interest in executing its judgment. Coleman has failed to establish exceptional circumstances warranting relief. We further find Coleman did not present “a clear case on the law, ... [or] 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). We therefore affirm the district court’s order denying his request for release on bond. We deny as moot Coleman’s motion to expedite the appeal. 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