Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Merrill v. Computer Dynamics, 98-1793 (1999)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 98-1793 Visitors: 24
Filed: Jun. 01, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-1793 In Re: COMPUTER DYNAMICS, INCORPORATED, Debtor. _ STEPHEN GARY MERRILL, Creditor - Appellant, versus ROBERT STARER, Operating Officer of CDI, Incorporated, Debtor - Appellee, versus U. S. TRUSTEE, Party-in-interest. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge. (CA-97-1086-2, BK-95-23127-A) Submitted: May 25, 1999 Decided: June 1, 1999
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-1793 In Re: COMPUTER DYNAMICS, INCORPORATED, Debtor. _________________________ STEPHEN GARY MERRILL, Creditor - Appellant, versus ROBERT STARER, Operating Officer of CDI, Incorporated, Debtor - Appellee, versus U. S. TRUSTEE, Party-in-interest. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge. (CA-97-1086-2, BK-95-23127-A) Submitted: May 25, 1999 Decided: June 1, 1999 Before ERVIN, WILKINS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Edward Francis Halloran, Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellant. Michael Patrick Cotter, VANDEVENTER BLACK, L.L.P., Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Stephen Gary Merrill appeals from the district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s orders: (1) imposing sanctions against him pursuant to Bankr. R. 9011, and (2) granting in part, and denying in part, the Appellee’s motion to strike the designa- tion of the record on appeal. Our review of the record and the opinions below discloses no reversible error. Accordingly, we af- firm on the reasoning of the district court. See Merrill v. Starer, Nos. CA-97-1086-2; BK-95-23127-A (E.D. Va. Apr. 28, 1998). 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