US v. Isaac Wood

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for other relief [998446829-2]; denying Motion for summary disposition (Local Rule 27(f)) [998448082-2]; denying Motion to strike [998477121-2]; denying Motion to schedule oral argument [998494436-2] Originating case number: 5:05-cr-00131-FL-1,5:05-cr-00131-FL-2 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998530098] [10-6900, 10-7299]

Case: 10-6900

Document: 38

Date Filed: 02/23/2011

Page: 1

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6900

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

No. 10-7299

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; 5:05-cr-00131-FL-2)

Submitted:

January 6, 2011

Decided:

February 23, 2011

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Case: 10-6900

Document: 38

Date Filed: 02/23/2011

Page: 2

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

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

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Case: 10-6900

Document: 38

Date Filed: 02/23/2011

Page: 3

PER CURIAM:
In

these

consolidated

appeals,

Isaac

Lee

Woods

and

Regina Bailey Woods appeal the district court’s June 17, 2010
order adopting the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation
and

denying

garnishment

several
and

motions,

the

August

the

August

31,

2010

31,

2010

of

dismissing

order

order

as

successive their motion seeking to vacate the criminal judgment.
We have reviewed the June 17, 2010 order and the August 31, 2010
order of garnishment and conclude there was no error and affirm
for

the

reasons

cited

by

the

district

court.

See

United

States v. Woods, No. 5:05-cr-00131-FL (E.D.N.C. June 17, 2010;
Aug. 31, 2010).
properly

We further conclude that the district court

dismissed

the

criminal judgments.

Woods’

motion

seeking

to

vacate

the

The Woods did not have authorization from

this court to file a second 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010)
motion.
Additionally, we construe the Woods’ notice of appeal
and

informal

brief

as

an

application

to

file

a

second

or

successive § 2255 motion.

United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d

200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003).

In order to obtain authorization to

file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims
based on either:
discoverable
establish

by

by

(1) newly discovered evidence, not previously
due

clear

diligence,
and

that

convincing
3

would

be

evidence

sufficient
that,

but

to
for

Case: 10-6900

Document: 38

Date Filed: 02/23/2011

Page: 4

constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found
the

movant

guilty

of

the

offense;

or

(2)

a

new

rule

of

constitutional law, previously unavailable, made retroactive by
the Supreme Court to cases on collateral review.
§ 2255(h) (West Supp. 2010).
either of these criteria.

28 U.S.C.A.

The Woods’ claims do not satisfy

Therefore, we deny authorization to

file a successive § 2255 motion.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders and
deny the Woods authorization to file a second 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255
(West Supp. 2010) motion.

We also deny the Woods’ motions to

void the district court’s orders, for summary disposition and to
strike the United States’ brief.

We deny the motion for 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

4