Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Heron v. Gold, 07-1206 (2007)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 07-1206 Visitors: 8
Filed: Jul. 26, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-1206 In Re: ALVA ROY HERON, JR., Debtor. - ALVA ROY HERON, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus H. JASON GOLD, Trustee, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. (1:06-cv-01219-TSE; BK-03-12302-RGM) Submitted: July 24, 2007 Decided: July 26, 2007 Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-1206 In Re: ALVA ROY HERON, JR., Debtor. ----------------------------- ALVA ROY HERON, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus H. JASON GOLD, Trustee, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. (1:06-cv-01219-TSE; BK-03-12302-RGM) Submitted: July 24, 2007 Decided: July 26, 2007 Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Alva Roy Heron, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Kalina Boyanova Miller, WILEY REIN, LLP, McLean, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Alva Roy Heron, Jr., appeals from the district court’s orders: (1) affirming the bankruptcy court’s orders denying his motion to compel the trustee to abandon certain claims in his bankruptcy case and approving the settlement of the claims, and (2) denying his motion for reconsideration of the order. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Heron v. Gold, Nos. 1:06-cv-01219-TSE; BK-03-12302-RGM (E.D. Va. filed Jan. 19, 2007 & entered Jan. 25, 2007; filed Jan. 30, 2007 & entered Jan. 31, 2007). 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 -
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer