Case Name: GARCIA FINANCIAL GROUP, INCORPORATED, a District of Columbia corporation; Jon J. Garcia, an individual and resident of the District of Columbia, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. VIRGINIA ACCELERATORS CORPORATION, a Virginia corporation; Ralph D. Genaurio, individual and resident of Virginia, Defendants-Appellants. Dulles Capital Group, Incorporated, Party in Interest
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-11-05
Citations: 112 F. App'x 293
Docket Number: Nos. 04-1224, 04-1287
Parties: GARCIA FINANCIAL GROUP, INCORPORATED, a District of Columbia corporation; Jon J. Garcia, an individual and resident of the District of Columbia, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. VIRGINIA ACCELERATORS CORPORATION, a Virginia corporation; Ralph D. Genaurio, individual and resident of Virginia, Defendants-Appellants. Dulles Capital Group, Incorporated, Party in Interest.
Judges: Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 112
Pages: 293–294

Head Matter:
GARCIA FINANCIAL GROUP, INCORPORATED, a District of Columbia corporation; Jon J. Garcia, an individual and resident of the District of Columbia, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. VIRGINIA ACCELERATORS CORPORATION, a Virginia corporation; Ralph D. Genaurio, individual and resident of Virginia, Defendants-Appellants. Dulles Capital Group, Incorporated, Party in Interest.
Nos. 04-1224, 04-1287.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 29, 2004.
Decided: Nov. 5, 2004.
John E. Harrison, Harrison & Hughes, P.C., Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellants.
Jonathan D. Westreich, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellees.
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, 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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Ralph D. Genaurio and Virginia Accelerators Corporation ("Appellants") appeal the district court's order granting Appellees' motion for Fed.R.Civ.P. 11 sanctions. This Court reviews the imposition of Rule 11 sanctions for abuse of discretion. Chaudhry v. Gallerizzo, 174 F.3d 394, 410 (4th Cir.1999). We have reviewed the briefs, joint appendices, and the district court's order, and find no abuse of discretion in the award of Rule 11 sanctions. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order granting Appellees' motion for sanctions. We deny, however, Appellees' motion for sanctions on 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
We note that Appellants also noted an appeal of the district court's order of January 21, 2004, granting a writ of execution to Appellees. Because Appellants did not raise any issue pertaining to this order in their brief, or at any time after perfecting their appeal, we deem all claims pertaining to that order waived. See Carter v. Lee, 283 F.3d 240, 252 n. 11 (4th Cir.2002) (contentions not raised in the opening brief generally considered waived).