Sterling v. Rosen

Fourth Circuit

Sterling v. Rosen

275 F. App'x 222

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided April 28, 2008·No. No. 07-2016·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Steven C. Sterling and Laura M. Sterling appeal from the district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s order lifting the automatic stay with respect to his residence. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Sterling v. Beskins, No. 3:07-cr-00039-nkm, 2007 WL 2915170 (W.D.Va. Oct. 4, 2007). We deny the Appellants’ motion for preparation of a transcript at government expense, and dis[223]*223pense 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:

Steven C. Sterling and Laura M. Sterling appeal from the district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s order lifting the automatic stay with respect to his residence. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Sterling v. Beskins, No. 3:07-cr-00039-nkm, 2007 WL 2915170 (W.D.Va. Oct. 4, 2007). We deny the Appellants’ motion for preparation of a transcript at government expense, and dis[223]*223pense 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.

Sterling v. Rosen, 275 F. App'x 222 (4th Cir. 2008).

Pincite

275 F. App'x 222 (Sterling v. Rosen) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.