UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4485
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ISAAC LEE WOODS,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 07-4486
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
REGINA BAILEY WOODS,
Defendant - Appellant.
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)
Submitted: September 24, 2008 Decided: October 8, 2008
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael A. Grace, Christopher R. Clifton, GRACE, TISDALE & CLIFTON,
P.A., Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellants. Anne Margaret
Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 these consolidated appeals, Isaac Lee Woods and Regina
Bailey Woods appeal their convictions and sentences. The
Appellants were convicted of one count of conspiracy to commit
identity theft, wire fraud, fake entries and false statements, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (2000), thirteen counts of wire fraud
and aiding and abetting such fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A.
§§ 1343, 2 (West 2000 & Supp. 2008), eleven counts of false
statements on HUD forms, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 1001, 2
(West 2000 & Supp. 2008), one count of conspiracy to commit money
laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 1956(h) (West 2000 &
Supp. 2008), and five counts of money laundering and aiding and
abetting such conduct, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A.
§§ 1956(a)(1)(A)(I), 2 (West 2000 & Supp. 2008). The Woods’
counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S.
738 (1967), asserting there were no meritorious issues for appeal,
but suggesting the court review the sufficiency of the evidence.
The Woods have filed a pro se supplemental brief. The Government
declined to file a brief. Finding no meritorious issues, we
affirm.
The Woods were convicted after a four-day jury trial
during which the Government established that the Woods, as approved
mortgage lenders for the Government National Mortgage Association
(“Ginnie Mae”) submitted fraudulent mortgage documents using the
3
names, signatures and social security numbers of friends and
relatives for their own enrichment. The evidence further
established the Woods laundered some of the funds they received in
order to conceal their scheme. In addition, the Woods filed other
fraudulent documents with the Government in order to become
approved lenders and to conceal their fraudulent conduct. We have
reviewed the record and find the evidence was sufficient. We have
also considered the issues raised in the Woods’ pro se supplemental
brief and find the arguments to be without merit.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in
this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We
therefore affirm the Woods’ convictions and sentences. We also
deny the Woods’ pending pro se motions to submit the cases on
their informal brief, to relieve their retained appellate counsel,
to expedite review, to reconsider their motion for release pending
the appeal, and for a new trial based on a deficient record on
appeal. This court requires counsel inform their clients, in
writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United
States for further review. If either requests a petition be filed,
but counsel believes such a petition would be frivolous, then
counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from
representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on the Appellants. We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in
4
the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
5