US v. Isaac Wood, No. 10-6900 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6900 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ISAAC LEE WOODS; REGINA BAILEY WOODS,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. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: In these consolidated appeals, Isaac Lee Woods and Regina Bailey Woods appeal the district court s June 17, 2010 order adopting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 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
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.
