Court Opinion

ID: 9840301
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-15 21:00:26.123803+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:33.726134
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7456      Doc: 13         Filed: 09/14/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-7456

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        JIAN-YUN DONG, a/k/a John Dong,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
        Charleston. Bruce H. Hendricks, District Judge. (2:11-cr-00511-BHH-1)

        Submitted: August 31, 2023                                  Decided: September 14, 2023

        Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Jian-Yun Dong, Appellant Pro Se. Cate Cardinale, Assistant United States Attorney,
        OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for
        Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7456         Doc: 13       Filed: 09/14/2023    Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

                  Jian-Yun Dong appeals the district court’s orders denying his motion to release

        assets, granting the United States’ motion to dismiss the forfeiture order as to Dong’s

        personal assets that were restrained and have those assets applied toward restitution, and

        denying reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s orders and

        affirm.     United States v. Dong, No. 2:11-cr-00511-BHH-1 (D.S.C. Sept. 23, 2022;

        Dec. 8, 2022). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

        adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the

        decisional process.

                                                                                     AFFIRMED

                                                     2