Robert G. Sabelhaus v. Derivium Capital, formerly known as First Security Capital, LLC

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-1381
ROBERT G. SABELHAUS; MELANIE R. SABELHAUS,
Plaintiffs - Appellees,
versus
DERIVIUM CAPITAL, formerly known as First
Security Capital, LLC,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, District
Judge. (CA-05-14-2)
Submitted: August 22, 2005 Decided: October 6, 2005
Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
M. Dawes Cooke, Jr., Andrea H. Brisbin, John W. Fletcher, BARNWELL,
WHALEY, PATTERSON & HELMS, L.L.C., Charleston, South Carolina; John
B. Kern, JOHN B. KERN INTERNATIONAL LAW, L.L.C., Charleston, South
Carolina, for Appellant. Richard A. Farrier, Jr., Andrea K. St.
Amand, NELSON, MULLINS, RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, L.L.P., Charleston,
South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 2 --

- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Derivium Capital, LLC (“Derivium”) appeals a district
court order and judgment granting the motion of Robert G. and
Melanie R. Sabelhaus to confirm an arbitration award under 9 U.S.C.
§ 9 (2000). Under § 9, any party to an arbitration award may move
in the district court within one year of the award for an order
confirming the award. “[T]hereupon the court must grant such an
order unless the award is vacated, modified, or corrected as
prescribed in sections 10 and 11 of this title.” Because the
arbitration award was not vacated, modified or corrected, the court
properly granted the motion and issued the confirming order. With
respect to Derivium’s other arguments, we find they are without
merit with respect to challenging the district court’s confirming
order and judgment. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s
judgment and order. 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 --