Kamkar-Parsi v. Ross

Fourth Circuit

Kamkar-Parsi v. Ross

110 F. App'x 352

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedOctober 13, 2004

DocketNo. 04-1887

StatusPublished

This text of 110 F. App'x 352 (Kamkar-Parsi v. Ross) 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

Kamkar-Parsi v. Ross, 110 F. App'x 352 (4th Cir. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

A. Masoud Gohari appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for attorney’s fees. We have reviewed the record and find the court did not abuse its discretion in not granting the motion. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Parsi v. Gohari, No. CA-02-296-AW (D. Md. June 30, 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

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

PER CURIAM:

A. Masoud Gohari appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for attorney’s fees. We have reviewed the record and find the court did not abuse its discretion in not granting the motion. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Parsi v. Gohari, No. CA-02-296-AW (D. Md. June 30, 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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

110 F. App'x 352, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kamkar-parsi-v-ross-ca4-2004.