United States v. Hammel

Eighth Circuit

United States v. Hammel

175 F. App'x 786

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedApril 17, 2006

DocketNo. 05-1601

StatusPublished

This text of 175 F. App'x 786 (United States v. Hammel) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth 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. Hammel, 175 F. App'x 786 (8th Cir. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Floyd and Rose Hammel appeal the district court’s¹ in rem judgment and decree of foreclosure granting summary judgment in favor of the government. We have carefully reviewed the record and consid[787]*787ered the parties’ arguments, and find no basis for overturning the district court’s well-reasoned opinion. See ARE Sikeston Ltd. P’ship v. Weslock Nat’l, Inc., 120 F.3d 820, 827 (8th Cir.1997) (standard of review).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

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

PER CURIAM.

Floyd and Rose Hammel appeal the district court’s¹ in rem judgment and decree of foreclosure granting summary judgment in favor of the government. We have carefully reviewed the record and consid[787]*787ered the parties’ arguments, and find no basis for overturning the district court’s well-reasoned opinion. See ARE Sikeston Ltd. P’ship v. Weslock Nat’l, Inc., 120 F.3d 820, 827 (8th Cir.1997) (standard of review).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

175 F. App'x 786, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-hammel-ca8-2006.