The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
17-6684•United States of America v. Jay Bonanza Briley
17-6684Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitOct 3, 2017
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-6684
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JAY BONANZA BRILEY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, District Judge. (1:12-cr-00482-LO-1)
Submitted: September 28, 2017 Decided: October 3, 2017
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jay Bonanza Briley, Appellant Pro Se. Kellen Sean Dwyer, Rosanne Cannon Haney,
David Sang Hak Lee, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria,
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Jay Bonanza Briley appeals the district court’s order denying his motions for a
reduction in sentence, for summary judgment, and for production of sealed records for use
in his civil case, and granting the Government’s motion to seal an exhibit Briley filed. We
have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the
reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Briley, No. 1:12-cr-00482-LO-1 (E.D.
Va. filed May 16, 2017; entered May 17, 2017). We deny Briley’s motion for appointment
of counsel and 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 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.