Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Kilborn v. Bakhir, 4th Cir. (2004)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    35 views3 pages
    The document summarizes a case between Jason Kilborn and Igor Bakhir in which both parties appealed a district court order sanctioning Kilborn $7,500, which represented a portion of Bakhir's attorney's fees and costs. The appeals court reviewed the district court's order for abuse of discretion and found no abuse of discretion in either imposing sanctions or the monetary amount. Therefore, the appeals court affirmed the district court's order sanctioning Kilborn $7,500 based on the district court's reasoning.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2004-07-07 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 04-1169

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The document summarizes a case between Jason Kilborn and Igor Bakhir in which both parties appealed a district court order sanctioning Kilborn $7,500, which represented a portion of Bakhir's attorney's fees and costs. The appeals court reviewed the district court's order for abuse of discretion and found no abuse of discretion in either imposing sanctions or the monetary amount. Therefore, the appeals court affirmed the district court's order sanctioning Kilborn $7,500 based on the district court's reasoning.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    35 views3 pages

    Kilborn v. Bakhir, 4th Cir. (2004)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The document summarizes a case between Jason Kilborn and Igor Bakhir in which both parties appealed a district court order sanctioning Kilborn $7,500, which represented a portion of Bakhir's attorney's fees and costs. The appeals court reviewed the district court's order for abuse of discretion and found no abuse of discretion in either imposing sanctions or the monetary amount. Therefore, the appeals court affirmed the district court's order sanctioning Kilborn $7,500 based on the district court's reasoning.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 04-1169

    JASON KILBORN,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    and
    OLGA LUKASHEVSKY,
    Plaintiff,
    versus
    IGOR BAKHIR,
    Defendant - Appellee.

    No. 04-1206

    JASON KILBORN,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    and
    OLGA LUKASHEVSKY,
    Plaintiff,
    versus
    IGOR BAKHIR,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonard D. Wexler, Senior
    District Judge, sitting by designation. (CA-01-1123-A)

    Submitted:

    May 19, 2004

    Decided:

    July 7, 2004

    Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Jason Kilborn, Appellant/Cross-appellee Pro Se.


    Mark Davis
    Cummings, Mary Mertz Parnell, SHER, CUMMINGS & ELLIS, Arlington,
    Virginia, for Appellee/Cross-appellant.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    - 2 -

    PER CURIAM:
    In these cross appeals, both parties appeal the district
    courts order (entered after a hearing upon remand from this Court)
    that sanctioned Kilborn $7500, which represented a portion of
    Bakhirs attorneys fees and costs.
    abuse of discretion.
    (1991).

    We review such an order for

    See Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 55

    Because we find no abuse of discretion in either the

    imposition of sanctions or the monetary amount of the sanction, we


    affirm the district courts order as to both appeals based on the
    reasoning of the district court. See Kilborn v. Bakhir, No. CA-011123-A (E.D. Va. Jan. 13, 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 -

    You might also like