US v. Isaac Woods

Filing 402790789

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--terminating Motion to expedite decision [998320825-2]; denying Motion for transcript at government expense [998228131-2] in 09-8004 Originating case number: 5:05-cr-00131-FL-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998334624] [09-8004, 10-6039]

Case: 09-8004

Document: 33

Date Filed: 05/07/2010

Page: 1

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-8004 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ISAAC LEE WOODS; REGINA BAILEY WOODS, Defendants - Appellants.

No. 10-6039 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: April 8, 2010 Decided: May 7, 2010

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Case: 09-8004

Document: 33

Date Filed: 05/07/2010

Page: 2

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Isaac Lee Woods, Regina Bailey Woods, Appellants Pro Se. S. Katherine Burnette, Edward D. Gray, Assistant United States Attorneys, Clay Campbell Wheeler, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Case: 09-8004

Document: 33

Date Filed: 05/07/2010

Page: 3

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

Bailey

Woods

district

court

orders

disposing of several of their post-judgment motions and their objections to the United States' attempt to collect on the

judgment of restitution.

We affirm.

We find no error in the United States' decision not to commence a separate civil action in order to enforce the

judgment of restitution.

We further note there was no clear

error by the district court finding that there was nothing to suggest an improper criminal investigation by the United States instead of a legitimate attempt to collect on the judgment of restitution. We have reviewed the record and affirm on the

reasoning of the district court.

See United States v. Woods,

No. 5:05-cr-00131-FL-1 (E.D.N.C. Oct. 23, 2009; Dec. 28, 2009). We also deny the Woods' motion for a copy of a transcript of the October 8, 2009 hearing prepared at the Government's expense and their motion to expedite. 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

3