Minh Vu Hoang v. UHY Advisors Flys, Inc. (In re Minh Vu Hoang)

Fourth Circuit

Minh Vu Hoang v. UHY Advisors Flys, Inc. (In re Minh Vu Hoang)

473 F. App'x 201

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided June 5, 2012·No. Nos. 12-1001, 12-1003, 12-1004, 12-1005·Published

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated appeals, Minh Vu Hoang appeals the district court’s orders dismissing as frivolous her appeal from the bankruptcy court’s orders in the underlying proceedings. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Hoang v. UHY Advisors FKYS, Inc., Nos. 8:11-cv02641-DKC; 05-21078; 11-00001; Hoang v. Rosen, Nos. 8:1 1-cv02642-DKC; 05-21078; 11-00001; Hoang v. Hecht, Nos. 8:11— cv02653-DKC; 05-21078; 11-00001; Hoang v. Gary Rosen, Nos. 8:11-cv-02654-DKC; 05-21078; 11-00001; (D.Md. Dec. 13, 2011). We deny Hoang’s motion to appoint counsel and 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

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated appeals, Minh Vu Hoang appeals the district court’s orders dismissing as frivolous her appeal from the bankruptcy court’s orders in the underlying proceedings. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Hoang v. UHY Advisors FKYS, Inc., Nos. 8:11-cv02641-DKC; 05-21078; 11-00001; Hoang v. Rosen, Nos. 8:1 1-cv02642-DKC; 05-21078; 11-00001; Hoang v. Hecht, Nos. 8:11— cv02653-DKC; 05-21078; 11-00001; Hoang v. Gary Rosen, Nos. 8:11-cv-02654-DKC; 05-21078; 11-00001; (D.Md. Dec. 13, 2011). We deny Hoang’s motion to appoint counsel and 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.

Minh Vu Hoang v. UHY Advisors Flys, Inc. (In re Minh Vu Hoang), 473 F. App'x 201 (4th Cir. 2012).

Pincite

473 F. App'x 201 (Minh Vu Hoang v. UHY Advisors Flys, Inc. (In re Minh Vu Hoang)) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.