Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Parkins, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    9 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the United States in a case where Charles Robert Parkins and A&E Technical Services were found to have violated the False Claims Act. The appeals court reviewed the parties' briefs and joint appendix and found no reversible error in the district court's ruling. The appeals court dispensed with oral arguments because the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in written materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2005-02-10 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 04-1956

    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 United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the United States in a case where Charles Robert Parkins and A&E Technical Services were found to have violated the False Claims Act. The appeals court reviewed the parties' briefs and joint appendix and found no reversible error in the district court's ruling. The appeals court dispensed with oral arguments because the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in written materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    9 views2 pages

    United States v. Parkins, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the United States in a case where Charles Robert Parkins and A&E Technical Services were found to have violated the False Claims Act. The appeals court reviewed the parties' briefs and joint appendix and found no reversible error in the district court's ruling. The appeals court dispensed with oral arguments because the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in written materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 04-1956

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    CHARLES
    ROBERT
    PARKINS;
    SERVICES, INCORPORATED,

    A&E

    TECHNICAL
    Defendants - Appellants.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
    District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Joseph Robert Goodwin,
    District Judge. (CA-02-1094-2)

    Submitted:

    January 28, 2005

    Decided:

    February 10, 2005

    Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Harold S. Albertson, Jr., Charleston, West Virginia, for


    Appellants. Kasey Warner, United States Attorney, Carol A. Casto,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Charles

    Robert

    Parkins

    and

    A&E

    Technical

    Services,

    Incorporated, appeal the district courts order granting summary


    judgment in favor of the United States on the United States claim
    that they violated the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. 3729-3733
    (2000).*

    We have reviewed the parties briefs and the joint

    appendix and find no reversible error.

    Accordingly, we affirm for

    the reasons stated by the district court.

    See United States v.

    Parkins, No. CA-02-1094-2 (S.D.W. Va. Feb. 20, 2004; July 1, 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

    Although Appellants also state that they appeal from the


    district courts order awarding damages, they failed to provide
    argument on the damages issue in their opening brief. We therefore
    find that this issue is not properly before us.
    See United
    States v. Al-Hamdi, 356 F.3d 564, 571 n.8 (4th Cir. 2004) (It is
    a well settled rule that contentions not raised in the argument
    section of the opening brief are abandoned.).
    - 2 -

    You might also like