Filed: Oct. 18, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1607 In Re: JOHNNY WOODARD, JR.; CAROLYN J. WOODARD, Debtors. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief Dis- trict Judge. (CA-00-93-5-BO, MC-00-1, BK-98-2759-8-JRL) Submitted: October 12, 2000 Decided: October 18, 2000 Before WILLIAMS and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1607 In Re: JOHNNY WOODARD, JR.; CAROLYN J. WOODARD, Debtors. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief Dis- trict Judge. (CA-00-93-5-BO, MC-00-1, BK-98-2759-8-JRL) Submitted: October 12, 2000 Decided: October 18, 2000 Before WILLIAMS and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. J..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1607 In Re: JOHNNY WOODARD, JR.; CAROLYN J. WOODARD, Debtors. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief Dis- trict Judge. (CA-00-93-5-BO, MC-00-1, BK-98-2759-8-JRL) Submitted: October 12, 2000 Decided: October 18, 2000 Before WILLIAMS and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Johnny Woodard, Jr., Carolyn J. Woodard, Appellants Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Johnny Woodard, Jr., and Carolyn J. Woodard appeal from the district court’s order dismissing their appeal from the bankruptcy court’s order dismissing their Chapter 13 proceeding. 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. See In re Woodard, Nos. CA-00-93-5-BO; MC-001-1; BK-98-2759-8-JRL (E.D.N.C. Apr. 20, 2000). 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
