UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4157
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
CHRISTOPHER R. WOODBERRY,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 03-4333
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
CHRISTOPHER R. WOODBERRY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. C. Weston Houck, Senior District
Judge; Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (CR-99-168; CR-02-40)
Submitted: December 22, 2003 Decided: February 3, 2004
Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Christopher R. Woodberry, Appellant Pro Se. William Earl Day, II,
Rose Mary Parham, Assistant United States Attorneys, Florence,
South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Christopher Woodberry appeals from the two judgments of
the district court convicting him of conspiring to distribute
cocaine and ecstasy and possessing a firearm as a convicted felon,
in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 846 (2000), and 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(g) (2000) (No. 03-4333); and revoking his supervised release
on a prior conviction for conspiring to defraud the United States,
in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (2000) (No. 03-4157). Finding no
error, we affirm.
Woodberry claims that the district court erred in denying
his various motions to withdraw his guilty plea. Our review of the
plea colloquy discloses that it was conducted in full compliance
with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11. Moreover, Woodberry makes no claim of
actual innocence and raises no additional factors that call into
question the validity of his plea. Accordingly we deny relief on
this claim. See United States v. Moore, 931 F.2d 245, 248 (4th
Cir. 1991).
Woodberry also claims that the district court erred in
denying his motion for recusal and that it became an “advocate for
the plea agreement.” (Appellant’s informal br. at 18). Nothing in
our review of the record of the district court discloses a
reasonable factual basis for doubting the judge’s impartiality.
Consequently, we deny relief on this claim. See In re Beard, 811
F.2d 818, 827 (4th Cir. 1987).
- 3 -
We affirm the judgment of the district court. We also
deny Woodberry’s pending motions for discovery, to correct
transcripts, to supplement the record on appeal with the name of a
confidential informant, for a copy of the Government’s information,
to hold the case in abeyance pending resolution of outstanding
motions, to file a second supplement seeking an audiotape copy of
his sentencing proceeding, and to compel a Government response to
pending motions. 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
- 4 -