Filed: Oct. 10, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-2206 In re: ERNEST P. FRANCIS, Respondent to motion for sanctions, Appellant. - ANDREW BLOWERS, Plaintiff, v. ANDREW SCOTT LERNER; GREGORY B. WALZ, Esq., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge. (1:15-cv-00889-GBL-MSN) Submitted: September 28, 2018 Decided: October 10, 2018 Before WILKINSON and HARRIS, Circuit
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-2206 In re: ERNEST P. FRANCIS, Respondent to motion for sanctions, Appellant. - ANDREW BLOWERS, Plaintiff, v. ANDREW SCOTT LERNER; GREGORY B. WALZ, Esq., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge. (1:15-cv-00889-GBL-MSN) Submitted: September 28, 2018 Decided: October 10, 2018 Before WILKINSON and HARRIS, Circuit J..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-2206
In re: ERNEST P. FRANCIS, Respondent to motion for sanctions,
Appellant.
--------------------------------------------
ANDREW BLOWERS,
Plaintiff,
v.
ANDREW SCOTT LERNER; GREGORY B. WALZ, Esq.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge. (1:15-cv-00889-GBL-MSN)
Submitted: September 28, 2018 Decided: October 10, 2018
Before WILKINSON and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ernest P. Francis, ERNEST P. FRANCIS, LTD., Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant.
John Connell Altmiller, Jr., PESNER KAWAMOTO CONWAY, PLC, McLean,
Virginia; Manuel Harry Newburger, BARRON & NEWBURGER PC, Austin, Texas, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Ernest P. Francis, the attorney for the Plaintiff in the underlying proceeding,
appeals from the district court’s final order directing Francis to pay the Defendants
$79,752, as sanctions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1927 (2012). We have reviewed the record
included on appeal, the district court’s opinions, and the parties’ briefs. We find, based
on the record before this court, that the district court correctly articulated the applicable
legal standards, made appropriate factual findings, and supported its conclusions with
evidence from the record. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court. 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
3