Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-04486/USCOURTS-ca4-07-04486-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Regina Bailey Woods
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED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.

Appeal: 07-4486 Doc: 100-2 Filed: 10/08/2008 Pg: 1 of 5
2

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 07-4486 Doc: 100-2 Filed: 10/08/2008 Pg: 2 of 5
3

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

Appeal: 07-4486 Doc: 100-2 Filed: 10/08/2008 Pg: 3 of 5
4

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

Appeal: 07-4486 Doc: 100-2 Filed: 10/08/2008 Pg: 4 of 5
5

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED

Appeal: 07-4486 Doc: 100-2 Filed: 10/08/2008 Pg: 5 of 5