Jordan v. Liebmann

Fourth Circuit

Jordan v. Liebmann

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJuly 6, 2005

Docket04-2323

StatusUnpublished

This text of Jordan v. Liebmann (Jordan v. Liebmann) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jordan v. Liebmann, (4th Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-2323

In Re: DANIEL DOYON,

Debtor.

------------------------

MARC L. JORDAN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

GEORGE W. LIEBMANN,

Defendant - Appellee,

HEIDI RICHARDSON,

Creditor - Appellee,

UNITED STATES TRUSTEE FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND,

Trustee - Appellee,

and

JOEL P. GOLDBERGER,

Trustee,

DANIEL DOYON; OREGON COLLEGE SAVINGS PLAN,

Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, Senior District Judge. (CA-04-50-WMN; BK-02-66141-SD)

Submitted: May 25, 2005 Decided: July 6, 2005

Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Marc L. Jordan, JORDAN & TELL, L.L.P., Columbia, Maryland, Appellant Pro Se. Orbie R. Shively, GEORGE W. LIEBMANN, P.A., Baltimore, Maryland; Michael J. Avenatti, Prescott A. Baier, Santa Monica, California; Clarkson McDow, United States Trustee, Donald F. Walton, Acting General Counsel, Paul W. Bridenhagen, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

- 2 - PER CURIAM:

Marc L. Jordan, an attorney, appeals the district court’s

order affirming the bankruptcy court’s order limiting his fees in

the underlying bankruptcy proceeding. We have reviewed the record

included on appeal, including the opinions of both courts below, as

well as the parties’ briefs and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district

court. See Jordan v. Liebmann (In re Doyon), Nos. CA-04-50-WMN;

BK-02-66141-SD (D. Md. Oct. 1, 2004). 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

- 3 -

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