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

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJune 5, 2012

DocketNos. 12-1001, 12-1003, 12-1004, 12-1005

StatusPublished

This text of 473 F. App'x 201 (Minh Vu Hoang v. UHY Advisors Flys, Inc. (In re Minh Vu Hoang)) 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

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

Pincite

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Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

473 F. App'x 201, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/minh-vu-hoang-v-uhy-advisors-flys-inc-in-re-minh-vu-hoang-ca4-2012.