US v. David Woodward, No. 09-6283 (4th Cir. 2009)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6283 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. DAVID MICHAEL WOODWARD, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (4:02-cr-00673-TLW-1) Submitted: August 27, 2009 Decided: October 1, 2009 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David Michael Woodward, Appellant Pro Se. William E. Day, II, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, Winston David Holliday, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: David Michael Woodward seeks to appeal the district court s order granting leave to amend his successive motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2009), or petition this court for authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). Woodward seeks to appeal is neither a final appealable interlocutory or collateral order. The order order nor an Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. * 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 * Although we express no opinion on the merits of the order Woodward seeks to appeal, we note that a resentencing under Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(b) does not restart the clock on the one-year limitations period for motions under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2009). United States v. Sanders, 247 F.3d 139, 144 (4th Cir. 2001). 2

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.