Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Kevin Robertson v. United States, 16-2123 (2017)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 16-2123 Visitors: 19
Filed: Feb. 02, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-2123 KEVIN ROBERTSON, Debtor - Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; COMPTROLLER OF MARYLAND, Creditors – Appellees, and MARK J. FRIEDMAN; U.S. TRUSTEE-BALTIMORE, II, Trustees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District Judge. (1:16-cv-01109-JFM; 14-10434) Submitted: January 31, 2017 Decided: February 2, 2017 Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THA
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-2123 KEVIN ROBERTSON, Debtor - Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; COMPTROLLER OF MARYLAND, Creditors – Appellees, and MARK J. FRIEDMAN; U.S. TRUSTEE-BALTIMORE, II, Trustees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District Judge. (1:16-cv-01109-JFM; 14-10434) Submitted: January 31, 2017 Decided: February 2, 2017 Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kevin Robertson, Appellant Pro Se. Julie Ciamporcero Avetta, Kavitha Bondada, Bruce R. Ellisen, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.; Michael Joseph Salem, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Annapolis, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Kevin Robertson appeals the district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s order denying his motion to reopen his prior Chapter 7 proceeding. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Robertson v. United States, No. 1:16-cv-01109-JFM (D. Md. Sept. 14, 2016). 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 3
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