Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles Robert PARKINS; A&E Technical Services, Incorporated, Defendants-Appellants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-02-10
Citations: 120 F. App'x 507
Docket Number: No. 04-1956
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Charles Robert PARKINS; A&E Technical Services, Incorporated, Defendants—Appellants.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 120
Pages: 507–508

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Charles Robert PARKINS; A&E Technical Services, Incorporated, Defendants—Appellants.
No. 04-1956.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 28, 2005.
Decided Feb. 10, 2005.
Harold S. Albertson, Jr., Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellants. Kasey Warner, United States Attorney, Carol A. Casto, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DUNCAN, 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Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.
Charles Robert Parkins and A&E Technical Services, Incorporated, appeal the district court's order granting summary judgment in favor of the United States on the United States' claim that they violated the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3729-3733 (2000). We have reviewed the parties' briefs and the joint appendix and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See United States v. Parkins, No. CA-02-1094-2 (S.D.W. Va. Feb. 20, 2004; July 1, 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
Although Appellants also state that they appeal from the district court's order awarding damages, they failed to provide argument on the damages issue in their opening brief. We therefore find that this issue is not properly before us. See United States v. Al-Hamdi, 356 F.3d 564, 571 n. 8 (4th Cir.2004) ("It is a well settled rule that contentions not raised in the argument section of the opening brief are abandoned.").