US v. Carlos Woods, No. 12-8126 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-8126 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CARLOS WOODS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge. (1:07-cr-00127-WDQ-1) Submitted: March 26, 2013 Decided: March 28, 2013 Before DUNCAN, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Carlos Woods, Appellant Pro Se. Assistant United States Attorney, Appellee. John Walter Sippel, Jr., Baltimore, Maryland, for Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Carlos Woods was convicted after a jury trial of possession with intent to distribute cocaine and marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(a)(1) (West 2006 & Supp. 2012), and sentenced to 262 months imprisonment. Following the affirmance of his convictions and the denial of his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012) motion, Woods proceeding pro se filed a self-styled Motion for Discovery. In the motion, Woods asserted that he did not know everything the prosecution h[a]d in their possession concerning his case. Relying on the Fifth Amendment, Woods moved for the release of the discovery in his case. 551 Liberally construing Woods motion, Erickson v. Pardus, U.S. 89, 94 (2007), he sought discovery under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963) (holding that suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment ). The district court denied the motion, and Woods appealed. After error in the discovery. review of district There is the record, court s no we denial general find of no the constitutional reversible motion for right to discovery in a criminal case, and Brady did not create one. United States v. Caro, 597 F.3d (internal quotation marks omitted). 2 608, 619 (4th Cir. 2010) Woods can only speculate as to what the requested information might reveal and thus cannot satisfy Brady s requirements that the information be favorable to him and material to his guilt or punishment. * Accordingly, order. affirm the district court s denial United States v. Woods, No. 1:07-cr-00127-WDQ-1 (D. Md. Dec. 10, 2012). facts we and materials legal before We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are adequately this and argument court presented would not in the aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED * Insofar as Woods motion was not predicated on Brady, he did not identify the authority providing for the relief he sought and, in any event, did not establish a particularized need for the information or that any harm would result from the failure to grant his discovery request. 3