Ge Bao v. Peng Li

D.C. Circuit

Ge Bao v. Peng Li

35 F. App'x 1

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit·Decided March 1, 2002·No. No. 00-7290·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the briefs and arguments by counsel. It is

ORDERED that the judgment from which this appeal has been taken be affirmed substantially for the reasons stated in the district court’s memorandum opinion of August 28, 2000.

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc. See Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the briefs and arguments by counsel. It is

ORDERED that the judgment from which this appeal has been taken be affirmed substantially for the reasons stated in the district court’s memorandum opinion of August 28, 2000.

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc. See Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.

Ge Bao v. Peng Li, 35 F. App'x 1 (D.C. Cir. 2002).

Pincite

35 F. App'x 1 (Ge Bao v. Peng Li) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related