Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-10-06039/USCOURTS-ca4-10-06039-0/pdf.json

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

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED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.

Appeal: 10-6039 Doc: 19 Filed: 05/07/2010 Pg: 1 of 3
2

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 10-6039 Doc: 19 Filed: 05/07/2010 Pg: 2 of 3
3

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

Appeal: 10-6039 Doc: 19 Filed: 05/07/2010 Pg: 3 of 3