United States of America, Small Business Administration v. Glen Mark, Jr., Claimant-Appellant, and Vanguard Investment Company, Inc.

7 F.3d 228, 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 32532, 1993 WL 366425
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedSeptember 21, 1993
Docket93-1492
StatusUnpublished

This text of 7 F.3d 228 (United States of America, Small Business Administration v. Glen Mark, Jr., Claimant-Appellant, and Vanguard Investment Company, Inc.) 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
United States of America, Small Business Administration v. Glen Mark, Jr., Claimant-Appellant, and Vanguard Investment Company, Inc., 7 F.3d 228, 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 32532, 1993 WL 366425 (4th Cir. 1993).

Opinion

7 F.3d 228

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
UNITED STATES of America, Small Business Administration,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Glen Mark, Jr., Claimant-Appellant,
and
Vanguard Investment Company, Inc., Defendant.

No. 93-1492.

United States Court of Appeals,
Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: August 26, 1993.
Decided: September 21, 1993.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.

Glen Mark, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Mark Anthony Spellman, SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION, for Appellee.

M.D.N.C.

AFFIRMED.

Before PHILLIPS, MURNAGHAN, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

OPINION

Glen Mark, Jr., appeals from the district court's order adopting the Receiver's recommendation to deny Mark's request to have his debt to the receivership estate set aside. Our review of the record and the district court's opinion discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court.* United States v. Mark, No. CA-87-374-2 (M.D.N.C. Feb. 25, 1993). In light of this disposition, Mark's Motion for Stay and Injunction Pending Outcome of Appeal is hereby denied. 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

*

Mark contends that his wife should be included as an Appellant in this action; however, as she did not sign the notice of appeal or otherwise participate in this action, we decline to include her as a party to the appeal. See Covington v. Allsbrook, 636 F.2d 63 (4th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 914 (1981)

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
7 F.3d 228, 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 32532, 1993 WL 366425, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-of-america-small-business-administration-v-glen-mark-jr-ca4-1993.