UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, JASPER LEE SCOTT, Plaintiff,

v. WALTER BILBRO, JR., Defendant-Appellant, No. 95-2005 and JERRY THOMAS, individually and as Police Chief of the City of Hampton; BILLY SANFORD, Officer, individually and as a City of Hampton Police Officer; CITY OF HAMPTON, a municipal corporation, Defendants-Appellees.JASPER LEE SCOTT, Plaintiff-Appellant, and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,

v. JERRY THOMAS, individually and as Police Chief of the City of No. 95-2041 Hampton; BILLY SANFORD, Officer, individually and as a City of Hampton Police Officer; CITY OF HAMPTON, a municipal corporation, Defendants-Appellees, and WALTER BILBRO, JR., Defendant.
2JASPER LEE SCOTT, Plaintiff-Appellant, and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. WALTER BILBRO, JR., Defendant-Appellant, No. 95-2421 and JERRY THOMAS, individually and as Police Chief of the City of Hampton; THE CITY OF HAMPTON, VIRGINIA, a municipal corporation; BILLY SANFORD, Officer, individually and as a City of Hampton Police Officer, Defendants-Appellees. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (CA-93-1029-9-22) Argued: March 6, 1996 Decided: April 3, 1996 Before HALL, HAMILTON, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________ Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________ 3COUNSEL ARGUED: Lawrence John Rosintoski, North Charleston, South Carolina; Herbert Wiley Louthian, Sr., LOUTHIAN & LOUTHIAN, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellants. Mary Gordon Baker, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: J. Preston Strom, Jr., United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee United States; Sandra J.Senn, STUCKEY & SENN, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees Thomas, Sanford, and City of Hampton.

_________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding pr ecedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________ OPINION PER CURIAM: Jasper Lee Scott appeals the district court's denial of his claim for attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, and Walter Bilbro, Scott'sattorney, appeals various issues concerning the district court's imposition of sanctions on him pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. Finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in either instance, we affirm.
I In July 1994, Scott was awarded a judgment for $73.00 in his civil rights action against the City of Hampton, South Carolina, Police Chief Jerry Thomas, and Officer Billy Sanford (the Defendants). Despite Scott's minimal success, Bilbro moved for over $45,000 inattorney's fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C.§ 1988. The Defendants, however, responded by noting that they had served Bilbro with an Offer of Judgment (the Offer) pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 68 for $7,500 in D ecember 1993, which precluded Scott from recovering
4attorney's fees that were incurred after service of the Offer. See Marryshow v. Flynn , 986 F.2d 689, 691 (4th Cir. 1993). Before the district court, Bilbro initially denied that he received the Offer in December 1993; instead, he claimed that he did not receivethe Offer until July 1994. But, when Bilbro was confronted by substantial evidence showing that he had received the Offer in December 1993, he subsequently claimed before the district court that he was never properly served with the Offer pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(c)because the Defendants did not include or attach a certificate of service with the Offer. After holding an evidentiary hearing, the district court found thatBilbro had violated Rule 11 and found him guilty of criminal contempt for violating 18 U.S.C. § 401(1). Accordingly, the district court fined Bilbro $5,000 for violating Rule 11 and ordered him to pay the attorney's fees ($9,828.91) that the Defendants had incurred in responding to Bilbro's fee petition. Additionally, the district court fined Bilbro $5,000 for violating § 401(1), but it ordered the fine to run concurrent with the fine for violating Rule 11. Finally, the district court found that it would be inappropriate to award Scott attorney's fees in light of his limited success and Bilbro's behavior. Bilbro and Scott then noted their appeals.
IIBilbro's major contention is that the district court abused its discretion by overlooking substantial evidence allegedly showing that he did not receive the Offer until July 1994. In the alternative, he contends that (1) he had a nonfrivolous argument that he was not properlyserved with the Offer because he did not receive a certificate of service, (2) the district court abused its discretion by not holding an evidentiary hearing concerning the time spent by the Defendants' attorneys responding to his fee petition, and (3) the district court's sanctions were excessive. Scott's lone contention is that the district court abused its discretion in denying him attorney's fees. Our review and consideration of the pertinent case law, the record, and the parties' briefs and arguments have revealed that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district 5court for the reasons stated in the district court's very thorough and exhaustive opinions. Scott v. Thomas , C/A No. 9:93-1029 (D.S.C. April 19, 1995); Scott v. Thomas , C/A No. 9:93-1029-22 (D.S.C. June 19, 1995).
AFFIRMED
6