Court Opinion

ID: 2961482
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 20:43:52.628733+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:01:42.719544
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          September 17, 1992    [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                                 ____________________        No. 91-2274                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                                 Plaintiff, Appellee,                                          v.                                ANN M. PALMER, ET AL.,                               Defendants, Appellants.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS                     [Hon. Robert E. Keeton, U.S. District Judge]                                             ___________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                                 Breyer, Chief Judge,                                         ___________                           Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,                                     ____________________                              and Selya, Circuit Judge.                                         _____________                                 ____________________            Peter R. Tritsch on brief for appellant Ann M. Palmer.            ________________            Peter R. Tritsch on brief pro se.            ________________            Philip F. Mulvey, Jr. on brief pro se.            _____________________                                 ____________________                                 ____________________                      Per  Curiam.    The  district  court's   denial  of                      ___________            appellants'   various   motions  for   attorneys'   fees  and            sanctions,  and   for   reconsideration,  is   affirmed   for            substantially  the reasons  stated  by  the  district  court.            Having  carefully  reviewed the  record  and  the briefs,  we            conclude  that  the district  court adequately  explained its            reasons  for denying sanctions.  The court's findings are not            clearly erroneous, and  the court  did not err  or abuse  its            discretion  in   denying  sanctions.    Nor   was  there  any            procedural irregularity.                      Affirmed.                      ________