UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-6900
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ISAAC LEE WOODS; REGINA BAILEY WOODS,
Defendants – Appellants.
No. 10-7299
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; 5:05-cr-00131-FL-2)
Submitted: January 6, 2011 Decided: February 23, 2011
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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 the district court’s June 17, 2010
order adopting the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation
and denying several motions, the August 31, 2010 order of
garnishment and the August 31, 2010 order dismissing as
successive their motion seeking to vacate the criminal judgment.
We have reviewed the June 17, 2010 order and the August 31, 2010
order of garnishment and conclude there was no error and affirm
for the reasons cited by the district court. See United
States v. Woods, No. 5:05-cr-00131-FL (E.D.N.C. June 17, 2010;
Aug. 31, 2010). We further conclude that the district court
properly dismissed the Woods’ motion seeking to vacate the
criminal judgments. The Woods did not have authorization from
this court to file a second 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010)
motion.
Additionally, we construe the Woods’ notice of appeal
and informal brief as an application to file a second or
successive § 2255 motion. United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d
200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003). In order to obtain authorization to
file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims
based on either: (1) newly discovered evidence, not previously
discoverable by due diligence, that would be sufficient to
establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for
3
constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found
the movant guilty of the offense; or (2) a new rule of
constitutional law, previously unavailable, made retroactive by
the Supreme Court to cases on collateral review. 28 U.S.C.A.
§ 2255(h) (West Supp. 2010). The Woods’ claims do not satisfy
either of these criteria. Therefore, we deny authorization to
file a successive § 2255 motion.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders and
deny the Woods authorization to file a second 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255
(West Supp. 2010) motion. We also deny the Woods’ motions to
void the district court’s orders, for summary disposition and to
strike the United States’ brief. We deny the motion for 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