United States v. Woods

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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, sentences and orders of restitution. We have
reviewed the district court orders that are the subject of
appeal nos. 08-8562, 09-6671 and 09-6953 and affirm for the
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 non-
appealable. 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 and to reconsider the order
3
denying their motion to unseal the record. 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 IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART
4