Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
- Rechtsrecherche mit Zugriff auf über 1 Million Quellen
- Dokumentenautomatisierung
- Mandatsverwaltung
- Gehostet in der EU und der Schweiz
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
00-2441•Mary Jo Wilhelmj v. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. CA-99-195-A
00-2441Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit24.04.2001
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-2441
MARY JO WILHELMJ,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
FIRST BANK,
Defendant - Appellee,
and
NORWEST BANK NEBRASKA, N.A.,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (CA-99-195-A)
Submitted: March 23, 2001 Decided: April 24, 2001
Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mary Jo Wilhelmj, Appellant Pro Se. David Ira Bledsoe, Alexandria,
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Mary Jo Wilhelmj appeals the district court’s order denying
her motion to reinstate her cases against Norwest Bank and US Bank
(formerly First Bank). In addition to referencing her substantive
claims against these institutions, Wilhelmj, in her docketing
statement and informal brief, raises new claims relating to a Wash-
ington Post newspaper article and the existence of certain high
technology military weaponry.
To the extent that Wilhelmj is challenging the district
court’s order denying her motion to reinstate, we have reviewed the
record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district
court. Wilhelmj v. First Bank, No. CA-99-195-A (E.D. Va. Oct. 6,
2000). To the extent that she is raising new claims, such claims
may not be raised for the first time in this court. Accordingly,
we express no opinion as to these new assertions. We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate-
ly presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
-- 2 of 2 --
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.