UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-6452
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ISAAC LEE WOODS; REGINA BAILEY WOODS,
Defendants – Appellants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan,
Chief District Judge. (5:05-cr-00131-FL-1; 5:05-cr-00131-FL-2;
5:09-cv-00396-FL; 5:09-cv-00397-FL)
Submitted: July 29, 2010 Decided: September 14, 2010
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Isaac Lee Woods, Regina Bailey Woods, Appellants Pro Se. Edward
D. Gray, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States
Attorneys, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Isaac Lee Woods and Regina Bailey Woods seek to appeal
the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the
magistrate judge and denying relief on their 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255
(West Supp. 2010) motion. The order is not appealable unless a
circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability
will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the
district court denies relief on the merits, an appellant
satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists
would find that the district court’s assessment of the
constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel,
529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S.
322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on
procedural grounds, an appellant must demonstrate both that the
dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion
states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional
right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently
reviewed the record and conclude that the Woods have not made
the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of
appealability and dismiss the appeal. We also deny the Woods’
motions seeking a copy of a transcript at Government expense,
random case assignment to a different panel, recusal of panel
2
and to expedite the decision. We deny Isaac Woods’ motion for
release pending appeal. 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.
DISMISSED
3