The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
00-1050•Nationsbank, Na v. Arlin Edward Raney
00-1050Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitAug 7, 2000
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-1050
NATIONSBANK, NA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
and
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE; LINDA MARTHA FECK,
a/k/a Linda Martha Feck Raney, Trustee,
Defendants - Appellees,
versus
ARLIN EDWARD RANEY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. James H. Michael, Jr., and
Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judges. (CA-98-18-5)
Submitted: June 30, 2000 Decided: August 7, 2000
Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Arlin Edward Raney, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph William Wright, III,
MCQUIRE, WOODS, BATTLE & BOOTHE, Charlottesville, Virginia; Anthony
Thomas Sheehan, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington,
D.C., for Appellees.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Arlin Edward Raney appeals from the district court’s orders:
(1) granting partial summary judgment to NationsBank on its inter-
pleader action and dismissing it as a stakeholder; (2) granting
summary judgment to Linda Martha Feck Raney as trustee and direct-
ing the payment of the interpleader fund to her; and (3) awarding
fees to the guardians ad litem appointed to represent the interests
of Raney and his minor children in the proceedings below. Our
review of the record and the district court’s opinions discloses no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the
district court. See NationsBank v. Raney, No. CA-98-18-5 (W.D.
Va., Oct. 1, 1998, Nov. 1, 1999, & Dec. 16, 1999). 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 in the decisional process. In light of this disposi-
tion, we deny Raney’s motion for preparation of a transcript at
government expense.
AFFIRMED
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.