In re: Minh Vu Hoang

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-1001
IN RE: MINH VU HOANG,
Debtor,
______________________
MINH VU HOANG,
Defendant – Appellant,
versus
UHY ADVISORS FLYS, INC.,
Third Party Defendant – Appellee,
and
GARY A. ROSEN,
Trustee.
No. 12-1003
IN RE: MINH VU HOANG; THANH HOANG
Debtors,
__________________________________
MINH VU HOANG,
Defendant – Appellant,

-- 1 of 4 --

2
v.
GARY A. ROSEN; ROGER SCHLOSSBERG,
Trustees - Appellees.
No. 12-1004
IN RE: MINH VU HOANG,
Debtor,
______________________
MINH VU HOANG,
Defendant – Appellant,
versus
MARION A. HECHT; JEFFREY K. BERNSTEIN; GOODMAN SOLUTIONS,
LLC; GOODMAN & COMPANY, LLP,
Third Party Defendants – Appellees,
and
ROGER SCHLOSSBERG; GARY A. ROSEN,
Trustees.
No. 12-1005
In re: MINH VU HOANG,
Debtor,
______________________
MINH VU HOANG,
Defendant – Appellant,

-- 2 of 4 --

3
versus
GARY A. ROSEN; TRUSTEE ROGER SCHLOSSBERG,
Third Party Defendants – Appellees,
and
GARY A. ROSEN, Individually; GARY A. ROSEN, Chartered,
Trustees.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District
of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, Chief District
Judge. (8:11-cv-02641-DKC; 8:11-cv-02642-DKC; 8:11-cv-02653-
DKC; 8:11-cv-02654; 05-21078; 11-00001)
Submitted: May 31, 2012 Decided: June 5, 2012
Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Minh Vu Hoang, Appellant Pro Se. Alan M. Grochal, Catherine
Keller Hopkin, TYDINGS & ROSENBERG, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland;
Gary A. Rosen, Rockville, Maryland; Roger Schlossberg,
SCHLOSSBERG & ASSOCIATES, Hagerstown, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 3 of 4 --

4
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Minh Vu Hoang appeals
the district court’s orders dismissing as frivolous her appeal
from the bankruptcy court’s orders in the underlying
proceedings. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the
district court. Hoang v. UHY Advisors FKYS, Inc., Nos. 8:11-cv-
02641-DKC; 05-21078; 11-00001; Hoang v. Rosen, Nos. 8:11-cv-
02642-DKC; 05-21078; 11-00001; Hoang v. Hecht, Nos. 8:11-cv-
02653-DKC; 05-21078; 11-00001; Hoang v. Gary Rosen, Nos. 8:11-
cv-02654-DKC; 05-21078; 11-00001; (D. Md. Dec. 13, 2011). We
deny Hoang’s motion to appoint counsel and 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

-- 4 of 4 --