Filed: May 27, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-1381 In Re: DALE E. HAMILTON, Debtor. In Re: CHARLENE S. HAMILTON, Debtor. _ DALE E. HAMILTON, Debtor - Appellant, versus GERALD M. O'DONNELL, Trustee - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior Dis- trict Judge. (CA-97-1735-A, BK-97-12554-MVB) Submitted: May 14, 1998 Decided: May 27, 1998 Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-1381 In Re: DALE E. HAMILTON, Debtor. In Re: CHARLENE S. HAMILTON, Debtor. _ DALE E. HAMILTON, Debtor - Appellant, versus GERALD M. O'DONNELL, Trustee - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior Dis- trict Judge. (CA-97-1735-A, BK-97-12554-MVB) Submitted: May 14, 1998 Decided: May 27, 1998 Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges,..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-1381 In Re: DALE E. HAMILTON, Debtor. In Re: CHARLENE S. HAMILTON, Debtor. _________________________ DALE E. HAMILTON, Debtor - Appellant, versus GERALD M. O'DONNELL, Trustee - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior Dis- trict Judge. (CA-97-1735-A, BK-97-12554-MVB) Submitted: May 14, 1998 Decided: May 27, 1998 Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dale E. Hamilton, Appellant Pro Se. Gerald M. O'Donnell, Alex- andria, Virginia, Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's orders (1) dis- missing his appeal from the bankruptcy court's order dismissing, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. ยงยง 1322(a)(6), 1325(a)(6) (1994), his peti- tion filed under Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code and (2) denying his motion for reconsideration. Our review of the record discloses no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm. 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