United States v. Bartrug

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedMay 3, 2005
Docket04-2294
StatusUnpublished

This text of United States v. Bartrug (United States v. Bartrug) 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 v. Bartrug, (4th Cir. 2005).

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-2294

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

LUTHER BARTRUG,

Defendant - Appellant,

and

SANDRA B. BARTRUG; PAHTRICK HERRY; ANGELA A. SAXON,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CA-95-769)

Submitted: April 28, 2005 Decided: May 3, 2005

Before WILLIAMS, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Luther Bartrug, Appellant Pro Se. Patricia McDonald Bowman, Thomas J. Clark, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.; Robert P. McIntosh, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

- 2 - PER CURIAM:

Luther Bartrug appeals from the district court’s orders

granting the motion of the Internal Revenue Service and amending

the order of sale of his property, enjoining him from filing any

further pleading in the case other than a notice of appeal, and

denying his motions for reconsideration of those orders. We have

reviewed the record and find no abuse of discretion and no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by

the district court. See United States v. Bartrug, No. CA-95-769

(E.D. Va. Aug. 19, Aug. 24, Sept. 10, & Oct. 14, 2004). 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

- 3 -

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
United States v. Bartrug, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-bartrug-ca4-2005.