Filed: Apr. 06, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-1393 BILLY G. MARTIN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MICHAEL HOLLAND, Trustee; JOSEPH P. BRENNAN, Trustee; MARTY D. HUDSON, Trustee; B. V. HYLER, Trustee; Trustees of the 1974 Pension Plan, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Big Stone Gap. James P. Jones, Chief District Judge. (CA-04-72) Submitted: November 22, 2006 Decided: April 6, 2007 Before WILLI
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-1393 BILLY G. MARTIN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MICHAEL HOLLAND, Trustee; JOSEPH P. BRENNAN, Trustee; MARTY D. HUDSON, Trustee; B. V. HYLER, Trustee; Trustees of the 1974 Pension Plan, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Big Stone Gap. James P. Jones, Chief District Judge. (CA-04-72) Submitted: November 22, 2006 Decided: April 6, 2007 Before WILLIA..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-1393 BILLY G. MARTIN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MICHAEL HOLLAND, Trustee; JOSEPH P. BRENNAN, Trustee; MARTY D. HUDSON, Trustee; B. V. HYLER, Trustee; Trustees of the 1974 Pension Plan, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Big Stone Gap. James P. Jones, Chief District Judge. (CA-04-72) Submitted: November 22, 2006 Decided: April 6, 2007 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Roger W. Rutherford, WOLFE, WILLIAMS & RUTHERFORD, Norton, Virginia, for Appellant. Glenda S. Finch, Deputy General Counsel, Carolyn O. Dutrow, Assistant General Counsel, Washington, D.C., for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Billy G. Martin appeals the district court’s order dismissing his complaint alleging a violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Martin v. Holland, No. CA-04-72 (W.D. Va. Mar. 5, 2005). 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 - 2 -