US v. Isaac Woods

Filing 920090814

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-8562

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ISAAC LEE WOODS; REGINA BAILEY WOODS, Defendants - Appellants.

No. 09-6271

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ISAAC LEE WOODS; REGINA BAILEY WOODS, Defendants - Appellants.

No. 09-6671

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ISAAC LEE WOODS; REGINA BAILEY WOODS, Defendants - Appellants.

No. 09-6953

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ISAAC LEE WOODS; REGINA BAILEY WOODS, Defendants - Appellants.

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-1)

Submitted:

July 23, 2009

Decided:

August 14, 2009

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Isaac Lee Woods; Regina Bailey Woods, Appellants Pro Se. Sarah Burnette, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

PER CURIAM: In these consolidated appeals, Isaac Lee Woods and

Regina Bailey Woods appeal three district court orders and one magistrate judge's order. After their four-day trial and this

court's affirmance of their convictions and sentences, the Woods began to file numerous meritless post-judgment motions in the district court challenging various parts of the trial, their convictions, reviewed appeal the sentences district 08-8562, and court 09-6671 orders orders and of restitution. are and the We have of the

that

subject for

nos.

09-6953

affirm

reasons cited by the district court in its orders.

We echo the

court's direction to the Woods that if they want to challenge their convictions and sentences, they should use the procedures outlined under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2009). With

respect to the Woods' appeal in no. 09-6271 from the magistrate judge's order denying motions to compel and to supplement that motion, we are without jurisdiction because the order was nonappealable. See Rataratnam v. Moyer, 47 F.3d 922, 924 (7th Cir.

1995); see also Estate of Conners v. O'Conner, 6 F.3d 656, 659 (9th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, we affirm in part and dismiss in part. We grant the Woods' motion to proceed in forma pauperis. We

also deny as moot their motions to expedite the appeals, for bail or release pending appeal 3 and to reconsider the order

denying their motion to unseal the record. oral argument because in the the facts and legal

We dispense with contentions the court are and

adequately

presented

materials

before

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART

4