UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

MARIAN K. AGNEW,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

No. 95-2819

ERNEST S. HENDRY, JR.; JUDITH

VENTURA HENDRY,

Defendants-Appellants.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.

T. S. Ellis, III, District Judge.

(CA-94-1559-A)

Submitted: May 28, 1996

Decided: July 19, 1996

Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Ernest S. Hendry, Jr., Judith Ventura Hendry, Appellants Pro Se.

Martin Ray Mann, Falls Church, Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

The Appellants, Ernest and Judith Hendry, appeal from the district

court's denial of their motions for a new trial and remittitur. A jury

found that the Hendrys owed Marian Agnew $26,066.17 in fees and

interest for legal work she had performed over an extended period of

time for the Hendrys. The Hendrys sought a new trial and remittitur

claiming that the trial court committed various errors and was prejudiced against them. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

The standard the trial court must apply in deciding whether to grant

a motion for a new trial has been described by this court as follows:

Under Rule 59 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a

trial judge may weigh the evidence and consider the credibility of the witnesses and, if he finds the verdict is against

the clear weight of the evidence, is based on false evidence

or will result in a miscarriage of justice, he must set aside

the verdict, even if supported by substantial evidence, and

grant a new trial.1

Having reviewed the record, we cannot say that the district court

abused its discretion in failing to find the verdict to be against the

clear weight of the evidence, based on false evidence, or a miscarriage of justice.2

Further, our examination of compensatory damage awards places

an extraordinary burden of proof on the party seeking to challenge the

award. We shall not set aside an award of compensatory damages as

excessive unless it is "against the clear weight of the evidence, or is

based upon evidence which is false, or will result in a miscarriage of

justice."3 We do not find the jury's award excessive or a miscarriage

of justice.

_________________________________________________________________

1 Poynter by Poynter v. Ratcliff , 874 F.2d 219, 223 (4th Cir. 1989).

2 Abasiekong v. City of Shelby, 744 F.2d 1055, 1059 (4th Cir. 1984).

3 Johnson v. Parrish, 827 F.2d 988, 991 (4th Cir. 1987) (quoting Aetna

Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Yeatts, 122 F.2d 350, 352 (4th Cir. 1941)); see also

Johnson v. Hugo's Skateway, 974 F.2d 1408, 1414 (4th Cir. 1992) (in

banc).

 2
Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order denying the Hendrys a new trial and remittitur. Additionally, we deny Agnew's

motion to dismiss this appeal. 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

 3