Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Stephen E. BISHOP, f/d/b/a Ray's Leisure Time Shop, Defendant-Appellant, and Mary Ann Bishop; West Virginia Bureau of Employment Programs; West Virginia Department of Tax and Revenue, Defendants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-05-21
Citations: 10 F. App'x 39
Docket Number: No. 00-1575
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Stephen E. BISHOP, f/d/b/a Ray’s Leisure Time Shop, Defendant-Appellant, and Mary Ann Bishop; West Virginia Bureau of Employment Programs; West Virginia Department of Tax and Revenue, Defendants.
Judges: Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 10
Pages: 39–39

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Stephen E. BISHOP, f/d/b/a Ray’s Leisure Time Shop, Defendant-Appellant, and Mary Ann Bishop; West Virginia Bureau of Employment Programs; West Virginia Department of Tax and Revenue, Defendants.
No. 00-1575.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted April 20, 2001.
Decided: May 21, 2001.
James R. Sheatsley, Gorman, Sheatsley & Company, L.C., Beckley, WV, for appellant. Paula M. Junghans, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Rebecca Aline Betts, United States Attorney, Gilbert S. Rothenberg, John A. Nolet, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for appellee.
Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Stephen E. Bishop appeals from the district court's orders denying his motion for a hearing and granting the government's motion to set aside a satisfaction of judgment that was allegedly entered by mistake. Bishop contends that the district court should have held a hearing and allowed him to present evidence as to the scope of the agreement. He also contends that the court erred in determining that the agreement settled some, rather than all, of the government's claims against him. Having previously granted Bishop's uncontested motion to submit on briefs, we have reviewed the briefs, the joint appendix, and the district court's opinions and find no abuse of discretion and no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Bishop, No. CA-96-2057-5 (S.D.W.Va. July 9,1999 & Mar. 3, 2000).
AFFIRMED.