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)
01-2395•United States of America v. Pearl B. Matthews
01-2395Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitJun 6, 2002
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-2395
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
PEARL B. MATTHEWS,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 02-1411
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
PEARL B. MATTHEWS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief
District Judge. (CA-95-137-5-BO)
Submitted: May 30, 2002 Decided: June 6, 2002
Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Pearl B. Matthews, Appellant Pro Se. G. Norman Acker, III, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Pearl B. Matthews appeals the district court’s orders denying
her motions filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), in which she sought
to vacate the court’s prior orders in this foreclosure action by
the government. We have reviewed the record and the district
court’s opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we
affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v.
Matthews, No. CA-95-137-5-BO (E.D.N.C. Nov. 5, 2001; Apr. 15,
2002). 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
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.