US v. Isaac Wood

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to disqualify/recuse judge [998409293-2]; denying Motion for bail/release pending appeal (Local Rule 9(a) and (b)) [998369915-2]; denying Motion to expedite decision [998341734-2]; denying Motion for transcript at government expense [998319722-2]; denying Motion for random case assignment to different panel [998313582-2]. Originating case numbers: 5:05-cr-00131-FL-1, 5:09-cv-00396-FL, 5:05-cr-00131-FL-2, 5:09-cv-00397-FL. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998424128] [10-6452]

US v. Isaac Wood

Doc. 0

Case: 10-6452 Document: 25

Date Filed: 09/14/2010

Page: 1

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6452 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ISAAC LEE WOODS; REGINA BAILEY WOODS, Defendants ­ Appellants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, Chief District Judge. (5:05-cr-00131-FL-1; 5:05-cr-00131-FL-2; 5:09-cv-00396-FL; 5:09-cv-00397-FL) Submitted: July 29, 2010 Decided: September 14, 2010

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Isaac Lee Woods, Regina Bailey Woods, Appellants Pro Se. D. Gray, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United Attorneys, for Appellee. Edward States

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 10-6452 Document: 25

Date Filed: 09/14/2010

Page: 2

PER CURIAM: Isaac Lee Woods and Regina Bailey Woods seek to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on their 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010) motion. The order is not appealable unless a

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability

will not issue absent "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." district court denies 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). relief on the merits, an When the appellant

satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court's assessment of the

constitutional claims is debatable or wrong.

Slack v. McDaniel,

529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on

procedural grounds, an appellant must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states right. a debatable Slack, 529 claim U.S. of at the denial We of a constitutional independently

484-85.

have

reviewed the record and conclude that the Woods have not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of We also deny the Woods'

appealability and dismiss the appeal.

motions seeking a copy of a transcript at Government expense, random case assignment to a different panel, recusal of panel 2

Case: 10-6452 Document: 25

Date Filed: 09/14/2010

Page: 3

and to expedite the decision. release pending appeal.

We deny Isaac Woods' motion for

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. DISMISSED

3