Filed: Dec. 05, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1860 SHERMAN B. LUBMAN, Chapter 7 Trustee, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DENISE J. LECLAIR, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CA-00-448, BK-98-35239-T, AP-99-3175-T) Submitted: November 29, 2001 Decided: December 5, 2001 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per cu
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1860 SHERMAN B. LUBMAN, Chapter 7 Trustee, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DENISE J. LECLAIR, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CA-00-448, BK-98-35239-T, AP-99-3175-T) Submitted: November 29, 2001 Decided: December 5, 2001 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per cur..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1860 SHERMAN B. LUBMAN, Chapter 7 Trustee, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DENISE J. LECLAIR, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CA-00-448, BK-98-35239-T, AP-99-3175-T) Submitted: November 29, 2001 Decided: December 5, 2001 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Denise J. LeClair, Appellant Pro Se. Kevin Allan Lake, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Denise J. LeClair appeals from the district court’s order dis- missing, as untimely, her appeal from the bankruptcy court’s order granting the bankruptcy trustee’s motion for default judgment and denying her a discharge in bankruptcy. 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. Lubman v. LeClair, Nos. CA-00-448; BK-98-35239-T; AP-99-3175-T (E.D. Va. June 15, 2001). We deny Appellee’s motion for sanctions. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten- tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2