Filed: Oct. 21, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-2327 In Re: FREDERICK H. QUARLES, Debtor. _ FREDERICK H. QUARLES, Plaintiff - Appellant, HOLLACE H. QUARLES, J. BARRETT JONES, Esquire, Plaintiffs, versus W. ALAN SMITH, JR., Trustee, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. James H. Michael, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-96-104-3, BK-94-1495-7-WA3, AP-96-3A) Submitted: October 8, 1998 Dec
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-2327 In Re: FREDERICK H. QUARLES, Debtor. _ FREDERICK H. QUARLES, Plaintiff - Appellant, HOLLACE H. QUARLES, J. BARRETT JONES, Esquire, Plaintiffs, versus W. ALAN SMITH, JR., Trustee, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. James H. Michael, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-96-104-3, BK-94-1495-7-WA3, AP-96-3A) Submitted: October 8, 1998 Deci..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-2327 In Re: FREDERICK H. QUARLES, Debtor. _________________________ FREDERICK H. QUARLES, Plaintiff - Appellant, HOLLACE H. QUARLES, J. BARRETT JONES, Esquire, Plaintiffs, versus W. ALAN SMITH, JR., Trustee, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. James H. Michael, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-96-104-3, BK-94-1495-7-WA3, AP-96-3A) Submitted: October 8, 1998 Decided: October 21, 1998 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Frederick H. Quarles, Appellant Pro Se. John Ernest Falcone, SMITH & FALCONE, Lynchburg, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court’s order denying his “Mo- tion for Rehearing” in this bankruptcy action. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Quarles v. Smith, Nos. CA-96-104-3; BK-94-1495-7-WA3; AP-96- 3A (W.D. Va. Aug. 25, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma- terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2