US v. Daniel Woods, No. 08-8299 (4th Cir. 2009)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-8299 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DANIEL WOODS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey, Chief District Judge. (3:05-cr-00025-JPB-JES-1; 3:07-cv-00155JPB-JES) Submitted: June 24, 2009 Decided: July 7, 2009 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Daniel Woods, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Oliver Mucklow, Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Daniel Woods seeks to appeal the district court s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2009) motion as untimely. denying Woods also seeks to appeal the district court s order his subsequent reconsideration. justice or judge Fed. issue absent constitutional prisoner issues a a certificate right. jurists constitutional P. 59(e) motion for 28 claims by showing U.S.C. this would of appealability. 28 A certificate of appealability will substantial satisfies reasonable Civ. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). not R. the the § 2253(c)(2) standard find of that district by denial (2006). demonstrating any assessment court is of a A that of debatable the or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Woods has not made the requisite showing. motion for appeal. legal a certificate of Accordingly, we deny Woods s appealability and dismiss the We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions are adequately 2 presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.