Court Opinion

ID: 990613
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-03 23:24:08.348463+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:29:29.288245
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

In Re: JOEL Z. ROBINSON,
Appellant.

CACI, INCORPORATED - FEDERAL;
CACI INTERNATIONAL, INCORPORATED,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v.
                                                               No. 95-2506
PENTAGEN TECHNOLOGIES
INTERNATIONAL, LTD; JOHN C. BAIRD;
MITCHELL R. LEISER,
Defendants-Appellants,

and

BAIRD TECHNOLOGIES, INCORPORATED,
Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge.
(CA-93-1631-A)

Argued: September 27, 1996

Decided: October 18, 1996

Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL

ARGUED: Joel Zulman Robinson, LAW OFFICES OF JOEL Z.
ROBINSON & CO., New York, New York, for Appellants. Joseph
William Koegel, Jr., STEPTOE & JOHNSON, Washington, D.C., for
Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Pentagen Technologies and its counsel, Joel Z. Robinson, appeal
the district court's order adopting the recommendation of the magis-
trate judge imposing sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
37(b) and (d) and 28 U.S.C.A. § 1927 (West 1994).* After reviewing
the record, the parties' briefs, and the applicable law, and after listen-
ing to the parties at oral argument, we find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we summarily affirm. See CACI Int'l, Inc. v. Pentagen
Technologies Int'l, Ltd., Civil Action No. 93-1631-A (E.D. Va. July
7, 1995) (affirming order of the magistrate judge and imposing sanc-
tions); see also CACI Int'l, Inc. v. Pentagen Technologies Int'l, Ltd.,
Civil Action No. 93-1631-A (E.D. Va. June 23, 1995) (magistrate
judge's order).

In addition, we note that we have already heard and rejected in a
prior appeal Appellants' argument that the district judge abused her
discretion when she refused to recuse herself from the case. See CACI
Int'l, Inc. v. Pentagen Technologies Int'l, Ltd., 70 F.3d 111, 1995 WL
_________________________________________________________________
*Pentagen and Robinson were sanctioned in the amount of $1,040 and
Robinson was sanctioned in the amount of $1,000 for failing to appear
for properly noticed depositions. See CACI Int'l, Inc. v. Pentagen Tech-
nologies Int'l, Ltd., Civil Action No. 93-1631-A (E.D. Va. July 7, 1995).

                     2
679952, *6 (4th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (unpublished disposition)
(holding that Appellants' recusal arguments were"frivolous on their
face"). As a result, Appellants' recusal arguments in this appeal are
barred by the law of the case. See Heathcoat v. Potts, 905 F.2d 367,
370 (11th Cir. 1990) (stating that an appellate court's holding is gen-
erally binding in all subsequent proceedings in the same case in the
trial court or on a later appeal); see also Capital Investors Co. v.
Executors of Estate of Morrison, 584 F.2d 652, 654 (4th Cir. 1978)
(court "did not intend for earlier findings and conclusions, which had
been affirmed on appeal, to be overturned with no new evidentiary
basis for it"), cert. denied, Frost v. Executors of Estate of Morrison,
440 U.S. 981 (1979). Furthermore, we reaffirm the view we thought
we previously had made crystal clear; that is, that we regard "as repre-
hensible Pentagen's claims that the district court`adopted a Lord Nel-
son one-eyed view of the facts,' that factual coincidences between
Judge Brinkema, her spouse[,] and CACI `have created a "banana
republic" perception of the court,' and that there was a `fix' between
CACI and Judge Brinkema's husband." CACI Int'l, 70 F.3d at 111,
1995 WL 679952 at *6 n.12 (citations to Appellants' brief omitted).
The order of the district court is therefore affirmed.

AFFIRMED

                    3