Case Name: Milo SHAMMAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michelle LEE, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-03-31
Citations: 683 F. App'x 195
Docket Number: No. 16-1656
Parties: Milo SHAMMAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michelle LEE, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 683
Pages: 195–196

Head Matter:
Milo SHAMMAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michelle LEE, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 16-1656
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 23, 2017
Decided: March 31, 2017
William Steffin, Armin Azod, Century City, California, Mark Baker, STEFFIN AZOD LLP, New York, New York; Carl E. Jennison, John N. Jennison, JENNI-SON & SHULTZ, P.C., Arlington, Virginia, for Appellant. Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Mark R. Freeman, Jaynie Lilley, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT' OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.; Nathan K. Kelley, Solicitor, Thomas W. Krause, Deputy Solicitor, Christina J. Hie-ber, Thomas L. Casagrande, Associate Solicitors, UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE, Alexandria, Virginia; Dana J. Boente, United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Milo Shammas appeals the district court's order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for relief from a judgment awarding expenses in this trademark action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Shammas v. Lee, 187 F.Supp.3d 659 (E.D. Va. 2016). We 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