Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Cynthia Allen-Williams, 12-1983 (2012)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 12-1983 Visitors: 17
Filed: Dec. 18, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 26, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-1983 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, PENNSYLVANIA HIGHER EDUCATION ASSISTANCE AGENCY, "PHEAA", Third Party Defendant – Appellee, v. CYNTHIA Y. ALLEN-WILLIAMS, D.D.S., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District Judge. (8:11-cv-01001-JFM) Submitted: November 6, 2012 Decided: December 18, 2012 Before WILKINSO
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-1983 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, PENNSYLVANIA HIGHER EDUCATION ASSISTANCE AGENCY, "PHEAA", Third Party Defendant – Appellee, v. CYNTHIA Y. ALLEN-WILLIAMS, D.D.S., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District Judge. (8:11-cv-01001-JFM) Submitted: November 6, 2012 Decided: December 18, 2012 Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Cynthia Y. Allen-Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Frank Corcoran, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland; William D. Day, GILL, SIPPEL & GALLAGHER, Rockville, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Cynthia Y. Allen-Williams, D.D.S., appeals from the district court’s memorandum and order entering judgment in favor of the United States in its action to recover amounts due on promissory notes executed in connection with two health education loans and granting the Third-Party Defendant, Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency, summary judgment on Allen-Williams’ third-party complaint. We have thoroughly reviewed the record and the district court’s memorandum and discern no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Allen-Williams, No. 8:11-cv-01001-JFM (D. Md. June 11 & June 21, 2012). We deny as moot Allen-Williams’ motion to stay execution of the money judgment entered against her. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this 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