
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Isaac Lee WOODS; Regina Bailey Woods, Defendants-Appellants. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Isaac Lee Woods; Regina Bailey Woods, Defendants-Appellants. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Isaac Lee Woods; Regina Bailey Woods, Defendants-Appellants. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Isaac Lee Woods; Regina Bailey Woods, Defendants-Appellants.
    Nos. 08-8562, 09-6271, 09-6671, 09-6953.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: July 23, 2009.
    Decided: Aug. 14, 2009.
    Isaac Lee Woods; Regina Bailey Woods, Appellants Pro Se. Sarah Bur-nette, Office of the United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
   Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated appeals, Isaac Lee Woods and Regina Bailey Woods appeal three district court orders and one magistrate judge’s order. After their four-day trial and this court’s affirmance of their convictions and sentences, the Woods began to file numerous meritless post-judgment motions in the district court challenging various parts of the trial, their convictions, sentences and orders of restitution. We have reviewed the district court orders that are the subject of appeal nos. 08-8562, 09-6671 and 09-6953 and affirm for the reasons cited by the district court in its orders. We echo the court’s direction to the Woods that if they want to challenge their convictions and sentences, they should use the procedures outlined under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2009). With respect to the Woods’ appeal in no. 09-6271 from the magistrate judge’s order denying motions to compel and to supplement that motion, we are without jurisdiction because the order was non-appealable. See Rajaratnam v. Moyer, 47 F.3d 922, 924 (7th Cir.1995); see also Estate of Conners v. O’Connor, 6 F.3d 656, 659 (9th Cir.1993).

Accordingly, we affirm in part and dismiss in part. We grant the Woods’ motion to proceed in forma pauperis. We also deny as moot their motions to expedite the appeals, for bail or release pending appeal and to reconsider the order denying their motion to unseal the record. 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 IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART.  