US v. Isaac Woods, No. 09-8004 (4th Cir. 2010)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-8004 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ISAAC LEE WOODS; REGINA BAILEY WOODS, Defendants - Appellants. No. 10-6039 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: April 8, 2010 Decided: Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. May 7, 2010 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Isaac Lee Woods, Regina Bailey Woods, Appellants Pro Se. S. Katherine Burnette, Edward D. Gray, Assistant United States Attorneys, Clay Campbell Wheeler, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: In Regina these Bailey consolidated Woods appeals, challenge two Isaac Lee district Woods court and orders disposing of several of their post-judgment motions and their objections to the United judgment of restitution. States attempt to collect on the We affirm. We find no error in the United States decision not to commence a separate civil judgment of restitution. action in order to enforce the We further note there was no clear error by the district court finding that there was nothing to suggest an improper criminal investigation by the United States instead of a legitimate attempt to collect on the judgment of restitution. We have reviewed the reasoning of the district court. record and affirm on the See United States v. Woods, No. 5:05-cr-00131-FL-1 (E.D.N.C. Oct. 23, 2009; Dec. 28, 2009). We also deny the Woods motion for a copy of a transcript of the October 8, 2009 hearing prepared at the Government s expense and their motion to expedite. 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 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.