UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-8126
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CARLOS WOODS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District
Judge. (1:07-cr-00127-WDQ-1)
Submitted: March 26, 2013 Decided: March 28, 2013
Before DUNCAN, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Carlos Woods, Appellant Pro Se. John Walter Sippel, Jr.,
Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Carlos Woods was convicted after a jury trial of
possession with intent to distribute cocaine and marijuana, in
violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(a)(1) (West 2006 & Supp. 2012),
and sentenced to 262 months’ imprisonment. Following the
affirmance of his convictions and the denial of his 28 U.S.C.A.
§ 2255 (West Supp. 2012) motion, Woods—proceeding pro se—filed a
self-styled “Motion for Discovery.” In the motion, Woods
asserted that he did not know “everything the prosecution h[a]d
in their possession concerning his case.” Relying on the Fifth
Amendment, Woods moved for the release of the “discovery” in his
case. Liberally construing Woods’ motion, Erickson v. Pardus,
551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007), he sought discovery under Brady v.
Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963) (holding that “suppression by
the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request
violates due process where the evidence is material either to
guilt or to punishment”). The district court denied the motion,
and Woods appealed.
After review of the record, we find no reversible
error in the district court’s denial of the motion for
discovery. “There is no general constitutional right to
discovery in a criminal case, and Brady did not create one.”
United States v. Caro, 597 F.3d 608, 619 (4th Cir. 2010)
(internal quotation marks omitted). Woods can only speculate as
2
to what the requested information might reveal and thus cannot
satisfy Brady’s requirements that the information be favorable
to him and material to his guilt or punishment. *
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s denial
order. United States v. Woods, No. 1:07-cr-00127-WDQ-1 (D. Md.
Dec. 10, 2012). We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
*
Insofar as Woods’ motion was not predicated on Brady, he
did not identify the authority providing for the relief he
sought and, in any event, did not establish a particularized
need for the information or that any harm would result from the
failure to grant his discovery request.
3