Case ID: br_530/html/0107-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jonathan D. MILLER; Nye, Peabody, Stirling, Hale & Miller, LLP, Appellants, v. NATIONAL HERITAGE FOUNDATION, INCORPORATED, Appellee. Daniel Joseph Schendzielos; Schendzielos & Associates, LLC, Appellants, v. National Heritage Foundation, Incorporated, Appellee. John R. Behrmann; Nancy Behrmann, Appellants, v. National Heritage Foundation, Incorporated, Appellee.
    Nos. 14-1541, 14-1543, 14-1576.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: March 31, 2015.
    Decided: April 8, 2015.
    John F. Bloss, Higgins Benjamin PLLC, Greensboro, North Carolina; Daniel J. Schendzielos, Schendzielos & Associates, LLC, Greenwood Village, Colorado; Jonathan D. Miller, Nye, Peabody, Stirling, Hale & Miller, Santa Barbara, California, for Appellants. David B. Goroff, Foley & Lardner, LLP, Chicago, Illinois; Erika L. Morabito, Foley & Lardner, LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
    Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

John R. Behrmann, Nancy Behrmann, and their attorneys, Jonathan Miller, Nye Peabody, Stirling, Hale and Miller, LLP, and Daniel Joseph Schendzielos, Schend-zielos & Associates, LLC, appeal from the district court’s order affirming the orders of the bankruptcy court denying the Behrmanns’ motion for leave to pursue litigation against the directors and officers of the Debtor, National Heritage Foundation, Incorporated, and granting National Heritage Foundation’s motion for sanctions. We have reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments on appeal, and we find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. National Heritage Found., Inc. v. Miller, 510 B.R. 526 (E.D.Va.2014). Although we deny National Heritage Foundation’s motion to strike the Appellants’ Reply brief, we grant the motion to submit these appeals on the briefs and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.