Filed: Mar. 09, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1929 DHARMESH VINODRAI MEHTA; RENU DHARMESH MEHTA, Debtors - Appellants, v. SANJIV D. SHAH; KAMINI S. SHAH, Creditors - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Anthony J. Trenga, District Judge. (1:14-cv-00025-AJT-TCB; 12-11061-BFK) Submitted: February 27, 2015 Decided: March 9, 2015 Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judg
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1929 DHARMESH VINODRAI MEHTA; RENU DHARMESH MEHTA, Debtors - Appellants, v. SANJIV D. SHAH; KAMINI S. SHAH, Creditors - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Anthony J. Trenga, District Judge. (1:14-cv-00025-AJT-TCB; 12-11061-BFK) Submitted: February 27, 2015 Decided: March 9, 2015 Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1929 DHARMESH VINODRAI MEHTA; RENU DHARMESH MEHTA, Debtors - Appellants, v. SANJIV D. SHAH; KAMINI S. SHAH, Creditors - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Anthony J. Trenga, District Judge. (1:14-cv-00025-AJT-TCB; 12-11061-BFK) Submitted: February 27, 2015 Decided: March 9, 2015 Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dharmesh Vinodrai Mehta, Renu Dharmesh Mehta, Appellants Pro Se. Marc Allan Busman, BUSMAN & BUSMAN, PC, Fairfax Station, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Dharmesh Vinodrai Mehta and Renu Dharmesh Mehta appeal the district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s order denying a discharge in their underlying Chapter 7 proceeding. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the courts below. Mehta v. Shah, No. 1:14-cv-00025-AJT-TCB (E.D. Va. Aug. 15, 2014). 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