Filed: Jun. 07, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-2799 DAVID L. HEILMAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, and TAX CERTIFICATE REDEMPTIONS, INCORPORATED; LMG PROPTERTIES, INCORPORATED, Plaintiffs, versus CONNAUGHT DEVELOPMENTS, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, District Judge. (CA-98-435-5-F, BK-94-353-5-ATS) Submitted: May 25, 1999 Decided: June 7, 1999 Before ERVIN
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-2799 DAVID L. HEILMAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, and TAX CERTIFICATE REDEMPTIONS, INCORPORATED; LMG PROPTERTIES, INCORPORATED, Plaintiffs, versus CONNAUGHT DEVELOPMENTS, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, District Judge. (CA-98-435-5-F, BK-94-353-5-ATS) Submitted: May 25, 1999 Decided: June 7, 1999 Before ERVIN,..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-2799 DAVID L. HEILMAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, and TAX CERTIFICATE REDEMPTIONS, INCORPORATED; LMG PROPTERTIES, INCORPORATED, Plaintiffs, versus CONNAUGHT DEVELOPMENTS, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, District Judge. (CA-98-435-5-F, BK-94-353-5-ATS) Submitted: May 25, 1999 Decided: June 7, 1999 Before ERVIN, WILKINS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David L. Heilman, Appellant Pro Se. David Warren Boone, BURNS, DAY & PRESNELL, P.A., Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: David Heilman appeals from the district court’s orders: (1) dismissing his appeal from the bankruptcy court’s order avoiding a lien and imposing sanctions against him, and (2) denying his motion for reconsideration. Our review of the record and the district court’s opinions discloses no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Heilman v. Connaught Developments, Inc., Nos. CA-98-435-5-F; BK-94-353-5-ATS (E.D.N.C. Oct. 21 & Nov. 9, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the district court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2