Securities & Exchange Commission v. Demitrios Julius Shiva, and Premier Capital Corporation Robert C. Anderson William R. Cone

57 F.3d 1067, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 21761, 1995 WL 352552
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedJune 13, 1995
Docket94-2501
StatusPublished

This text of 57 F.3d 1067 (Securities & Exchange Commission v. Demitrios Julius Shiva, and Premier Capital Corporation Robert C. Anderson William R. Cone) 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
Securities & Exchange Commission v. Demitrios Julius Shiva, and Premier Capital Corporation Robert C. Anderson William R. Cone, 57 F.3d 1067, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 21761, 1995 WL 352552 (4th Cir. 1995).

Opinion

57 F.3d 1067
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Demitrios Julius SHIVA, Defendant-Appellant,
and
PREMIER CAPITAL CORPORATION; Robert C. Anderson; William
R. Cone; Defendants.

No. 94-2501.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 18, 1995.
Decided: June 13, 1995.

Demitrios Julius Shiva, Appellant Pro Se. Paul P. Andrews, Securities & Exchange Commission, Washington, DC, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order entering a permanent injunction. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion, and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. SEC v. Shiva, No. CA-94-2374-2-1 (D.S.C. Oct. 25, 1994). 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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
57 F.3d 1067, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 21761, 1995 WL 352552, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/securities-exchange-commission-v-demitrios-julius--ca4-1995.