Hamlett v. Krippendorf

Fourth Circuit

Hamlett v. Krippendorf

47 F. App'x 673

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided October 10, 2002·No. No. 02-1390·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Richard Hamlett appeals the district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s order denying Hamlett’s motion to reconsider a prior order denying his request to file a late notice of appeal. Our review of the record, the parties’ briefs, and the opinions below discloses no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Hamlett v. Krippendorf, No. CA-02-60-7 (E.D.Va. Mar. 21, 2002); No. BK-98-2653-7 RKR (Bankr.W.D.Va. Dec. 4, 2001). 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.

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

PER CURIAM.

Richard Hamlett appeals the district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s order denying Hamlett’s motion to reconsider a prior order denying his request to file a late notice of appeal. Our review of the record, the parties’ briefs, and the opinions below discloses no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Hamlett v. Krippendorf, No. CA-02-60-7 (E.D.Va. Mar. 21, 2002); No. BK-98-2653-7 RKR (Bankr.W.D.Va. Dec. 4, 2001). 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.

Hamlett v. Krippendorf, 47 F. App'x 673 (4th Cir. 2002).

Pincite

47 F. App'x 673 (Hamlett v. Krippendorf) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.