Filed: Mar. 30, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-2312 AMERICA ONLINE, INCORPORATED, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CHRISTOPHER INGRAM, Defendant - Appellant, and CONTINENTAL FINANCIAL GROUP, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CA-97-1563) Submitted: March 16, 2005 Decided: March 30, 2005 Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-2312 AMERICA ONLINE, INCORPORATED, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CHRISTOPHER INGRAM, Defendant - Appellant, and CONTINENTAL FINANCIAL GROUP, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CA-97-1563) Submitted: March 16, 2005 Decided: March 30, 2005 Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per c..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-2312 AMERICA ONLINE, INCORPORATED, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CHRISTOPHER INGRAM, Defendant - Appellant, and CONTINENTAL FINANCIAL GROUP, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CA-97-1563) Submitted: March 16, 2005 Decided: March 30, 2005 Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Christopher Ingram, Appellant Pro Se. Anthony Tobias Pierce, AKIN, GUMP, STRAUSS, HAUER & FELD, L.L.P., McLean, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Christopher Ingram appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his motion to vacate judgment. We have reviewed the record and find no abuse of discretion or reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See America Online, Inc. v. Ingram, No. CA-97-1563 (E.D. Va., filed Sept. 28, 2004; entered Sept. 30, 2004). 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 -
