US v. Isaac Woods
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ISAAC LEE WOODS, Defendant - Appellant.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. REGINA BAILEY WOODS, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at New Bern. Louise W. Flanagan, Chief District Judge. (5:05-cr-00131-FL)
September 24, 2008
October 8, 2008
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael A. Grace, Christopher R. Clifton, GRACE, TISDALE & CLIFTON, P.A., Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellants. Anne Margaret Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, Clay Campbell Wheeler, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: In these consolidated appeals, Isaac Lee Woods and Regina Bailey Woods appeal their convictions and sentences. The
Appellants were convicted of one count of conspiracy to commit identity theft, wire fraud, fake entries and false statements, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (2000), thirteen counts of wire fraud and aiding and abetting such fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 1343, 2 (West 2000 & Supp. 2008), eleven counts of false statements on HUD forms, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 1001, 2 (West 2000 & Supp. 2008), one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 1956(h) (West 2000 & Supp. 2008), and five counts of money laundering and aiding and abetting such conduct, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. The Woods'
§§ 1956(a)(1)(A)(I), 2 (West 2000 & Supp. 2008).
counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting there were no meritorious issues for appeal, but suggesting the court review the sufficiency of the evidence. The Woods have filed a pro se supplemental brief. declined to file a brief. affirm. The Woods were convicted after a four-day jury trial during which the Government established that the Woods, as approved mortgage lenders for the Government National Mortgage Association ("Ginnie Mae") submitted fraudulent mortgage documents using the The Government
Finding no meritorious issues, we
names, signatures and social security numbers of friends and relatives for their own enrichment. The evidence further
established the Woods laundered some of the funds they received in order to conceal their scheme. fraudulent documents with the In addition, the Woods filed other Government in order to become We have We have
approved lenders and to conceal their fraudulent conduct. reviewed the record and find the evidence was sufficient.
also considered the issues raised in the Woods' pro se supplemental brief and find the arguments to be without merit. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. therefore affirm the Woods' convictions and sentences. We
deny the Woods' pending pro se motions to submit the cases on their informal brief, to relieve their retained appellate counsel, to expedite review, to reconsider their motion for release pending the appeal, and for a new trial based on a deficient record on appeal. This court requires counsel inform their clients, in
writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If either requests a petition be filed, but counsel believes such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from
Counsel's motion must state that a copy thereof We dispense with oral argument
was served on the Appellants.
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in
the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?