*

 After an examination of the briefs and the record, we have concluded that

oral argument is unnecessary. Thus, the appeal is submitted on the briefs and the

record. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted November 29, 2005*

Decided November 30, 2005

Before

Hon. WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge

Hon. FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge

Hon. ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge

Nos. 04-2841 & 05–2700

HSBC BANK, PLC, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

HARVEY GOLDSTEIN and

MARTHA HUSSEY,

Defendants-Appellants.

Appeals from the United States

District Court for the Northern District

of Illinois, Eastern Division

No. 03 C 3607

Samuel Der–Yeghiayan, 

Judge.

ORDER

Harvey Goldstein and Martha Hussey appeal from orders of the district court

granting HSBC summary judgment and awarding HSBC attorneys’ fees. Since we

UNPUBLISHED ORDER

Not to be cited per Circuit Rule 53
Nos. 04-2841, 05-2700 Page 2

find Goldstein and Hussey’s brief to be inadequate under Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(9), we

dismiss the appeals. 

In 2003, HSBC discovered that more than $600,000 had been fraudulently

transferred out of one of its accounts held by the Nigerian National Petroleum

Company to an account at LaSalle Bank that was held jointly by Goldstein and

Hussey. HSBC Bank sued Goldstein and Hussey for unjust enrichment, seeking to

recover the fraudulently transferred funds. However, by this time, Goldstein and

Hussey had already transferred a large portion of the money to third parties. HSBC

sued Goldstein and Hussey for the entire amount. 

In June 2004, the district court granted HSBC’s motion for summary

judgment in part, and imposed a constructive trust on the money that remained in

Goldstein and Hussey’s account. The court then dismissed without prejudice HSBC’s

claim to the rest of the money. The court also awarded HSBC attorneys’ fees, and

instructed HSBC to submit a breakdown of the fees it incurred so that the court could

specify an amount of fees to be awarded. Goldstein, but not Hussey, appealed this

order. In May 2005, after receiving HSBC’s breakdown of attorneys’ fees, the court

awarded HSBC over $130,000 in fees. Goldstein and Hussey both appealed this

second order. 

Goldstein and Hussey’s brief fails to comply with Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(9). This

rule requires appellants to present legal arguments that are “more than a

generalized assertion of error” and that are supported by citations to relevant case

law and statutes. Anderson v. Hardman, 241 F.3d 544, 545 (7th Cir. 2001); Mathis v.

New York Life Ins. Co., 133 F.3d 546, 548 (7th Cir. 1998) (per curiam). Although we

have made allowances for Goldstein and Hussey’s pro se status, their brief does not

articulate any coherent legal argument. They devote the majority of their brief to

accusing HSBC of misconduct rather than identifying errors in the district court’s

reasoning. Furthermore, they have cited only two cases, neither of which is binding

in this circuit or has anything to do with their principal contentions. Therefore,

these appeals are dismissed.

HSBC has also moved for sanctions under Fed. R. App. P. 38. Rule 38

sanctions are appropriate when an appeal is frivolous, that is “when the result is

obvious or when the appellant’s argument is wholly without merit.” Grove Fresh

Distrib., Inc. v. John Labatt, Ltd., 299 F.3d 635, 642 (7th Cir. 2002) (internal citation

and quotation marks omitted). Since we have already found that Goldstein and

Hussey failed to present any developed legal arguments, their appeals are clearly

frivolous, and an award of sanctions is justified. 
Nos. 04-2841, 05-2700 Page 3

For the foregoing reasons, we DISMISS the appeal and award HSBC

sanctions in the amount of its reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred in this appeal. 

HSBC must submit a statement of its attorneys’ fees within two weeks of the issuance

of this order.