Case Name: THE CIT GROUP/EQUIPMENT FINANCING, INCORPORATED, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. Nabil J. ASTERBADI, Defendant - Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-04-01
Citations: 124 F. App'x 808
Docket Number: No. 04-2296
Parties: THE CIT GROUP/EQUIPMENT FINANCING, INCORPORATED, Plaintiff — Appellee, v. Nabil J. ASTERBADI, Defendant — Appellant.
Judges: Before LUTTIG and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 124
Pages: 808–808

Head Matter:
THE CIT GROUP/EQUIPMENT FINANCING, INCORPORATED, Plaintiff — Appellee, v. Nabil J. ASTERBADI, Defendant — Appellant.
No. 04-2296.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 23, 2005.
Decided: April 1, 2005.
Dale A. Cooter, Cooter, Mangold, Tom-pert & Wayson, L.L.P., Washington, D.C., for Appellant.
Steven N. Leitess, Jeremy S. Friedberg, Andrew L. Cole, Leitess, Leitess & Fried-berg, P.C., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before LUTTIG and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Nabil J. Asterbadi appeals the district court's order denying his motion for correction of judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(a). We have reviewed the record and find that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion. See Kocher v. Dow Chem. Co., 132 F.3d 1225, 1229 (8th Cir.1997) (stating review standard). Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See CIT Group/Equip. Fin., Inc. v. Asterbadi, No. CA-93-857-1 (E.D. Va. filed Sept. 24, 2004 & entered Sept. 28, 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