Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

CACI International v. Pentagen Tech Intl, 02-2211 (2003)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 02-2211 Visitors: 43
Filed: Oct. 22, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-2211 CACI INTERNATIONAL, INCORPORATED; CACI, INCORPORATED - FEDERAL, Plaintiffs - Appellees, versus PENTAGEN TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, LTD.; JOHN C. BAIRD; MITCHELL R. LEISER, Defendants - Appellants, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Party-in-interest, and BAIRD TECHNOLOGIES, INCORPORATED, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior Distri
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-2211 CACI INTERNATIONAL, INCORPORATED; CACI, INCORPORATED - FEDERAL, Plaintiffs - Appellees, versus PENTAGEN TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, LTD.; JOHN C. BAIRD; MITCHELL R. LEISER, Defendants - Appellants, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Party-in-interest, and BAIRD TECHNOLOGIES, INCORPORATED, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (CA-93-1631-A) Submitted: September 29, 2003 Decided: October 22, 2003 Before LUTTIG and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joel Z. Robinson, LAW OFFICES JOEL Z. ROBINSON & COMPANY, New York, New York, for Appellants. J. William Koegel, Jr., STEPTOE & JOHNSON, L.L.P., Washington, D.C., for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Pentagen Technologies International appeals the district court’s order denying the motion to reopen a 1994 declaratory judgment as predicated on fraud. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See CACI Int’l Inc. v. Pentagen Techs. Int’l Ltd., No. CA-93-1631-A (E.D. Va. Aug. 30, 2002). 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