Case Name: Robert G. SABELHAUS; Melanie R. Sabelhaus, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. DERIVIUM CAPITAL, formerly known as First Security Capital, LLC, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-10-06
Citations: 150 F. App'x 226
Docket Number: No. 05-1381
Parties: Robert G. SABELHAUS; Melanie R. Sabelhaus, Plaintiffs—Appellees, v. DERIVIUM CAPITAL, formerly known as First Security Capital, LLC, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 150
Pages: 226–227

Head Matter:
Robert G. SABELHAUS; Melanie R. Sabelhaus, Plaintiffs—Appellees, v. DERIVIUM CAPITAL, formerly known as First Security Capital, LLC, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 05-1381.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 22, 2005.
Decided: Oct. 6, 2005.
M. Dawes Cooke, Jr., Andrea H. Brisbin, John W. Fletcher, Barnwell, Whaley, Patterson & Helms, L.L.C., Charleston, South Carolina; John B. Kern, John B. Kern, International Law, L.L.C., Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant. Richard A. Farrier, Jr., Andrea K. St. Amand, Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, L.L.P., Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Derivium Capital, LLC ("Derivium") appeals a district court order and judgment granting the motion of Robert G. and Melanie R. Sabelhaus to confirm an arbitration award under 9 U.S.C. § 9 (2000). Under § 9, any party to an arbitration award may move in the district court within one year of the award for an order confirming the award. "[TJhereupon the court must grant such an order unless the award is vacated, modified, or corrected as prescribed in sections 10 and 11 of this title." Because the arbitration award was not vacated, modified or corrected, the court properly granted the motion and issued the confirming order. With respect to Derivium's other arguments, we find they are without merit with respect to challenging the district court's confirming order and judgment. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's judgment and order. 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