Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Woods, 4th Cir. (2011)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    6 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of a motion filed by Isaac Lee Woods, Regina Bailey Woods, and Ella R. Woods under Rule 60(b)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The appellants sought review of the district court's order that cited reasons for denying the Rule 60(b)(4) motion. The Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and district court order and affirmed the denial of the motion for the same reasons provided by the district court. The Fourth Circuit also denied the appellants' motion for summary disposition and their motion for oral argument.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2011-04-22 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 10-2340

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of a motion filed by Isaac Lee Woods, Regina Bailey Woods, and Ella R. Woods under Rule 60(b)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The appellants sought review of the district court's order that cited reasons for denying the Rule 60(b)(4) motion. The Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and district court order and affirmed the denial of the motion for the same reasons provided by the district court. The Fourth Circuit also denied the appellants' motion for summary disposition and their motion for oral argument.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    6 views2 pages

    United States v. Woods, 4th Cir. (2011)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of a motion filed by Isaac Lee Woods, Regina Bailey Woods, and Ella R. Woods under Rule 60(b)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The appellants sought review of the district court's order that cited reasons for denying the Rule 60(b)(4) motion. The Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and district court order and affirmed the denial of the motion for the same reasons provided by the district court. The Fourth Circuit also denied the appellants' motion for summary disposition and their motion for oral argument.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 10-2340

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    ISAAC LEE WOODS; REGINA BAILEY WOODS; ELLA R. WOODS,
    Defendants Appellants,
    and
    UNLIMITED FINANCIAL RESOURCES,
    Defendant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at New Bern. W. Earl Britt, Senior
    District Judge. (5:07-cv-00187-BR)

    Submitted:

    April 4, 2011

    Decided:

    April 22, 2011

    Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Isaac Lee Woods, Regina Bailey Woods, Ella R. 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.

    PER CURIAM:
    Isaac Lee Woods, Regina Bailey Woods and Ella R. Woods
    appeal the district courts order denying their motion filed
    under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4).

    We have reviewed the record and

    the district courts order and affirm for the reasons cited by
    the district court.

    See United States v. Woods, No. 5:07-cv-

    00187-BR (E.D.N.C. Sept. 27, 2010).


    for

    summary

    disposition.

    We

    also

    We deny the Woods motion


    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

    You might also like