Jaffe v. Goodwin

Fourth Circuit

Jaffe v. Goodwin

139 F. App'x 582

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Jaffe v. Goodwin. Read the opinion of the Court — 102 F. App'x 784 →

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided July 27, 2005·No. No. 05-1136·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Allen V. Jaffe appeals the district court’s order imposing sanctions in the form of attorneys’ fees and costs. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Jaffe v. Goodwin, No. CA-03-799-3 (E.D.Va. Dec. 14, 2004). We deny the Hirschler Defendants’ motion for Fed. R.App. P. 38 sanctions. 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:

Allen V. Jaffe appeals the district court’s order imposing sanctions in the form of attorneys’ fees and costs. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Jaffe v. Goodwin, No. CA-03-799-3 (E.D.Va. Dec. 14, 2004). We deny the Hirschler Defendants’ motion for Fed. R.App. P. 38 sanctions. 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

Jaffe v. Goodwin, 139 F. App'x 582 (4th Cir. 2005).

Pincite

139 F. App'x 582 (Jaffe v. Goodwin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.