United States v. Woodberry

Fourth Circuit

United States v. Woodberry

86 F. App'x 589

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 3, 2004

Docket03-4157, 03-4333

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 86 F. App'x 589 (United States v. Woodberry) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Woodberry, 86 F. App'x 589 (4th Cir. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Christopher Woodberry appeals from the two judgments of the district court convicting him of conspiring to distribute cocaine and ecstasy and possessing a firearm as a convicted felon, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 846 (2000), and 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (2000) (No. 03-4333); and revoking his supervised release on a prior conviction for conspiring to defraud the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (2000) (No. 03-4157). Finding no error, we affirm.

Woodberry claims that the district court erred in denying his various motions to withdraw his guilty plea. Our review of the plea colloquy discloses that it was conducted in full compliance with Fed. R.Crim.P. 11. Moreover, Woodberry makes no claim of actual innocence and raises no additional factors that call into question the validity of his plea. Accordingly we deny relief on this claim. See United States v. Moore, 931 F.2d 245, 248 (4th Cir.1991).

Woodberry also claims that the district court erred in denying his motion for recusal and that it became an “advocate for the plea agreement.” (Appellant’s informal br. at 18). Nothing in our review of the record of the district court discloses a reasonable factual basis for doubting the judge’s impartiality. Consequently, we deny relief on this claim. See In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 827 (4th Cir.1987).

We affirm the judgment of the district court. We also deny Woodberry’s pending motions for discovery, to correct transcripts, to supplement the record on appeal with the name of a confidential informant, for a copy of the Government’s information, to hold the case in abeyance pending resolution of outstanding motions, to file a second supplement seeking an audiotape copy of his sentencing proceeding, and to compel a Government response to pending motions. 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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Christopher Woodberry appeals from the two judgments of the district court convicting him of conspiring to distribute cocaine and ecstasy and possessing a firearm as a convicted felon, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 846 (2000), and 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (2000) (No. 03-4333); and revoking his supervised release on a prior conviction for conspiring to defraud the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (2000) (No. 03-4157). Finding no error, we affirm.

Woodberry claims that the district court erred in denying his various motions to withdraw his guilty plea. Our review of the plea colloquy discloses that it was conducted in full compliance with Fed. R.Crim.P. 11. Moreover, Woodberry makes no claim of actual innocence and raises no additional factors that call into question the validity of his plea. Accordingly we deny relief on this claim. See United States v. Moore, 931 F.2d 245, 248 (4th Cir.1991).

Woodberry also claims that the district court erred in denying his motion for recusal and that it became an “advocate for the plea agreement.” (Appellant’s informal br. at 18). Nothing in our review of the record of the district court discloses a reasonable factual basis for doubting the judge’s impartiality. Consequently, we deny relief on this claim. See In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 827 (4th Cir.1987).

We affirm the judgment of the district court. We also deny Woodberry’s pending motions for discovery, to correct transcripts, to supplement the record on appeal with the name of a confidential informant, for a copy of the Government’s information, to hold the case in abeyance pending resolution of outstanding motions, to file a second supplement seeking an audiotape copy of his sentencing proceeding, and to compel a Government response to pending motions. 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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

86 F. App'x 589, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-woodberry-ca4-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack