US v. Ronald Maurice Woods, (4th Cir. 2000)

Text

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-6427 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus

RONALD MAURICE WOODS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District

Judge. (CR-95-7, CA-98-18-7)

Submitted: June 15, 2000 Decided: June 23, 2000

Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Cir-

cuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ronald Maurice Woods, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Randall Ramseyer,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Abingdon, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM

Ronald Maurice Woods appeals the district court’s orders denying his motions filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 and 60. He claims on appeal that he is entitled to relief because he raised his claim related to the sufficiency of his indictment in his prior motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Woods , Nos. CR-95-7; CA-98-18-7 (W.D. Va. Feb. 16, 2000); see also United States v. Williams , 674 F.2d 310, 313 (4th Cir. 1982) (holding that relief is not authorized where the Rule 60(b) motion is “nothing more than a request that the district court change its mind”). 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. DISMISSED

---