Honour Technical Group, Inc.; Brian K. Honour v. United States of America

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-1878
HONOUR TECHNICAL GROUP, INC.; BRIAN K. HONOUR,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; DEPARTMENT
OF TREASURY; INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE; PAUL CLEMENT,
Solicitor General,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 09-1138
HONOUR TECHNICAL GROUP, INC.; BRIAN K. HONOUR,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; DEPARTMENT
OF TREASURY; INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE; PAUL CLEMENT,
Solicitor General,
Defendants – Appellees.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever, III,
District Judge. (5:07-cv-00472-D)
Submitted: May 28, 2009 Decided: June 2, 2009

-- 1 of 3 --

Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Brian K. Honour, Appellant Pro Se. Sara Ann Ketchum, David I.
Pincus, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, DC, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Honour Technical Group, Inc., and Brian K. Honour seek
to appeal the district court’s orders dismissing their action
without prejudice and denying their subsequent motions to
expedite and to reopen the case. We dismiss the appeals as they
pertain to Honour Technical Group, Inc., because it is not
represented by counsel and a corporation may not proceed pro se
in federal court. See Rowland v. California Men’s Colony, 506
U.S. 194, 202 (1993) (“A corporation may appear in the federal
courts only through licensed counsel.”). We also deny the
pending motions for reconsideration of this court’s position
that a corporation may not proceed on appeal without
representation by counsel.
Turning to Honour’s claims as an individual, we have
reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly,
we affirm the appeals as they pertain to Brian K. Honour for the
reasons stated by the district court. Honour Tech. Group, Inc.
v. United States, No. 5:07-cv-00472-D (E.D.N.C. May 27, 2008).
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 IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART

-- 3 of 3 --