United States v. Parkins , 120 F. App'x 507 ( 2005 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 04-1956
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    CHARLES   ROBERT   PARKINS;     A&E    TECHNICAL
    SERVICES, INCORPORATED,
    Defendants - Appellants.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
    District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Joseph Robert Goodwin,
    District Judge. (CA-02-1094-2)
    Submitted:   January 28, 2005           Decided:    February 10, 2005
    Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Harold S. Albertson, Jr., Charleston, West Virginia, for
    Appellants. Kasey Warner, United States Attorney, Carol A. Casto,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Charles     Robert    Parkins    and    A&E    Technical    Services,
    Incorporated, appeal the district court’s order granting summary
    judgment in favor of the United States on the United States’ claim
    that they violated the False Claims Act, 
    31 U.S.C. §§ 3729-3733
    (2000).*   We have reviewed the parties’ briefs and the joint
    appendix and find no reversible error.            Accordingly, we affirm for
    the reasons stated by the district court.                See United States v.
    Parkins, No. CA-02-1094-2 (S.D.W. Va. Feb. 20, 2004; July 1, 2004).
    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
    *
    Although Appellants also state that they appeal from the
    district court’s order awarding damages, they failed to provide
    argument on the damages issue in their opening brief. We therefore
    find that this issue is not properly before us.        See United
    States v. Al-Hamdi, 
    356 F.3d 564
    , 571 n.8 (4th Cir. 2004) (“It is
    a well settled rule that contentions not raised in the argument
    section of the opening brief are abandoned.”).
    - 2 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 04-1956

Citation Numbers: 120 F. App'x 507

Judges: Duncan, Niemeyer, Per Curiam, Wilkinson

Filed Date: 2/10/2005

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/7/2023