Filed: Jul. 19, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-1906 BARRY NAKELL, Respondent - Appellant, v. JOHN M. BARTH, SR., Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (5:14-cv-00236-F) Submitted: April 29, 2016 Decided: May 11, 2016 Amended: July 19, 2016 Before SHEDD, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Matthew Nis Leerber
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-1906 BARRY NAKELL, Respondent - Appellant, v. JOHN M. BARTH, SR., Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (5:14-cv-00236-F) Submitted: April 29, 2016 Decided: May 11, 2016 Amended: July 19, 2016 Before SHEDD, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Matthew Nis Leerberg..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-1906
BARRY NAKELL,
Respondent - Appellant,
v.
JOHN M. BARTH, SR.,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (5:14-cv-00236-F)
Submitted: April 29, 2016 Decided: May 11, 2016
Amended: July 19, 2016
Before SHEDD, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Matthew Nis Leerberg, SMITH MOORE LEATHERWOOD LLP, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Michael J. Small, David B. Goroff, Licyau
Wong, FOLEY & LARDNER LLP, Chicago, Illinois; Reginald B.
Gillespie, Jr., N. Hunter Wyche, Jr., WILSON & RATLEDGE, PLLC,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Barry Nakell appeals the district court’s order assessing
fees and costs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1927 (2012), against him
for unreasonably multiplying the proceedings in an action in a
bankruptcy case. We have reviewed the parties’ briefs and the
record on appeal and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we
affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Nakell v.
Barth, No. 5:14-cv-00236-F (E.D.N.C. July 10, 2015). We grant
Barth’s motion to submit the case on the briefs and we dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before this court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2