United States v. Wooden

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-6944
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
HERMAN WOODEN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior
District Judge. (CR-90-18-A)
Submitted: March 21, 2007 Decided: April 13, 2007
Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Michael S. Nachmanoff, Acting Federal Public Defender, Frances H.
Pratt, Research and Writing Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for
Appellant. Brian James Samuels, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Herman Wooden appeals the district court’s order denying
his motions for bail pending resolution of appeal No. 04-6793, for
an injunction against his transfer to another correctional facility
while his case was pending, to reopen his case, and for
consideration of new issues by the district court while this case
was on limited remand from the court of appeals. Counsel has filed
a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738(1967), asserting that the district court did not have jurisdiction
to address the motions that Wooden filed, and, even if it did, the
motions were properly denied. Although advised of his right to
file a supplemental brief, Wooden has not filed a brief, but has
filed a motion for appointment of new counsel and requesting that
he be allowed to supplement the motion for reconsideration that he
filed in the district court. We affirm in part and dismiss the
appeal in part.
Because appeal No. 04-6793 has been resolved and because
Wooden has been transferred to a different facility, we dismiss as
moot Wooden’s appeal from the district court’s denial of his
motions for bail pending appeal and for an injunction against his
transfer.
When Wooden filed his motions to reopen the case
underlying appeal No. 04-6793 and for the district court to
consider new issues on remand, jurisdiction over the case was in
- 2 -
the court of appeals; the only issue before the district court by
reason of our limited remand was a determination of the date on
which Wooden gave his notice of appeal to prison officials so that
we could determine whether Wooden’s appeal in No. 04-6793 was
timely noted. Thus, the district court lacked jurisdiction over
the substance of the case. Lacking jurisdiction, the district
court was without authority to act on Wooden’s motions which
involved aspects of the case involved in the appeal. United
States v. Christy, 3 F.3d 765, 767-68 (4th Cir. 1993); see
Griggs v. Provident Consumer Disc. Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982)
(“The filing of a notice of appeal is an event of jurisdictional
significance--it confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and
divests the district court of its control over those aspects of the
case involved in the appeal.”). Thus, we affirm the district
court’s denial of these motions on the alternate ground that the
court lacked jurisdiction over the issues. See United States v.
Smith, 395 F.3d 516, 518-19 (4th Cir. 2005) (“We are not limited to
evaluation of the grounds offered by the district court to support
its decision, but may affirm on any grounds apparent from the
record.”).
As required by Anders, we have reviewed the entire record
and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore
affirm the district court’s order denying Wooden’s motions to
reopen and to consider new issues, and dismiss his appeal from the
- 3 -
district court’s order denying his motions for bail pending appeal
and for an injunction against his transfer. We deny Wooden’s
motion for reappointment of counsel and for leave to supplement or
file a Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion in the district court. This
court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If the client requests that a petition be filed,
but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then
counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from
representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on the client. 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 -