UNPUBLISHED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: May 7, 2010
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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 these consolidated appeals, Isaac Lee Woods and
Regina Bailey Woods challenge two district court orders
disposing of several of their post-judgment motions and their
objections to the United States’ attempt to collect on the
judgment of restitution. We affirm.
We find no error in the United States’ decision not to
commence a separate civil action in order to enforce the
judgment of restitution. 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 record and affirm on the
reasoning of the district court. 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