Case Name: Jason KILBORN, Plaintiff-Appellant, and Olga Lukashevsky, Plaintiff, v. Igor BAKHIR, Defendant-Appellee; Jason Kilborn, Plaintiff-Appellee, and Olga Lukashevsky, Plaintiff, v. Igor Bakhir, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-07-07
Citations: 102 F. App'x 328
Docket Number: Nos. 04-1169, 04-1206
Parties: Jason KILBORN, Plaintiff—Appellant, and Olga Lukashevsky, Plaintiff, v. Igor BAKHIR, Defendant—Appellee. Jason Kilborn, Plaintiff—Appellee, and Olga Lukashevsky, Plaintiff, v. Igor Bakhir, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 102
Pages: 328–329

Head Matter:
Jason KILBORN, Plaintiff—Appellant, and Olga Lukashevsky, Plaintiff, v. Igor BAKHIR, Defendant—Appellee. Jason Kilborn, Plaintiff—Appellee, and Olga Lukashevsky, Plaintiff, v. Igor Bakhir, Defendant—Appellant.
Nos. 04-1169, 04-1206.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted May 19, 2004.
Decided July 7, 2004.
Jason Kilborn, Appellant/Cross-appellee pro se. Mark Davis Cummings, Mary Mertz Parnell, Sher, Cummings & Ellis, Arlington, Virginia, for Appellee/Cross-appellant.
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, 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Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
In these cross appeals, both parties appeal the district court's order (entered after a hearing upon remand from this Coui't) that sanctioned Kilborn $7500, which i'epresented a portion of Bakhir's attorney's fees and costs. We review such an order for abuse of discretion. See Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 55, 111 S.Ct. 2123, 115 L.Ed.2d 27 (1991). Because we find no abuse of discretion in either the imposition of sanctions or the monetary amount of the sanction, we affirm the district court's order as to both appeals based on the reasoning of the district court. See Kilborn v. Bakhir, No. CA-01-1123-A (E.D.Va. Jan. 13, 2004). 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