United States v. Holland, 4th Cir. (2010)

Download as pdf
Download as pdf
You are on page 1of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-1636

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
BOBBY N. HOLLAND; BOBBY
HOLLAND; REBECCA HOLLAND,

N.

HOLLAND,

Trustee;

JACQUELYN

Defendants - Appellants,
OPTION ONE MORTGAGE CORPORATION,
Defendant - Appellee,
and
H&R BLOCK MORTGAGE CORPORATION,
Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (5:07-cv-00445-BO)

Submitted:

August 27, 2010

Decided:

September 10, 2010

Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bobby N. Holland, Jacquelyn Holland, Rebecca Holland, Appellants


Pro Se.
Ivan C. Dale, Jan M. Geht, Teresa E. McLaughlin,
Kenneth W. Rosenberg, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Washington, DC; Joseph H. Nanney, Jr., Kevin J. Stanfield,
WYRICK, ROBBINS, YATES & PONTON, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:
Bobby

N.

Holland,

Bobby

N.

Holland

as

Trustee,

Jacquelyn Holland, and Rebecca Holland appeal two district court


orders.

The

first

order

granted

summary

judgment

to

the

Government and Option One Mortgage Corporation, reduced various


tax liens to judgment, and ordered the sale of real property at
1805 Trinity Road in Raleigh, North Carolina.

The second order

granted the Governments motion to reconsider and amended the


amount of the assessments as of September 15, 2008.
reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
we

deny

Appellants

motion

for

abeyance

reasons stated by the district court.

and

We have

Accordingly,

affirm

for

the

See United States v.

Holland, No. 5:07-cv-00445-BO (E.D.N.C. filed Apr. 29, 2009 &


entered Apr. 30, 2009; filed Aug. 13, 2009 & entered Aug. 14,
2009).
legal
before

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and


contentions
the

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.
AFFIRMED

You might also like