Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • CACI International v. Pentagen Tech Intl, 4th Cir. (2003)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    8 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued an unpublished opinion affirming the district court's denial of Pentagen Technologies International's motion to reopen a 1994 declaratory judgment. Pentagen had claimed the earlier judgment was predicated on fraud. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, agreeing with the district court's reasoning that the motion to reopen the judgment was without merit. The appeals court dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately addressed in the court filings.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2003-10-22 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 02-2211

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued an unpublished opinion affirming the district court's denial of Pentagen Technologies International's motion to reopen a 1994 declaratory judgment. Pentagen had claimed the earlier judgment was predicated on fraud. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, agreeing with the district court's reasoning that the motion to reopen the judgment was without merit. The appeals court dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately addressed in the court filings.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    8 views2 pages

    CACI International v. Pentagen Tech Intl, 4th Cir. (2003)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued an unpublished opinion affirming the district court's denial of Pentagen Technologies International's motion to reopen a 1994 declaratory judgment. Pentagen had claimed the earlier judgment was predicated on fraud. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, agreeing with the district court's reasoning that the motion to reopen the judgment was without merit. The appeals court dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately addressed in the court filings.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 02-2211

    CACI
    INTERNATIONAL,
    INCORPORATED;
    INCORPORATED - FEDERAL,

    CACI,
    Plaintiffs - Appellees,

    versus
    PENTAGEN TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL,
    JOHN C. BAIRD; MITCHELL R. LEISER,

    LTD.;
    Defendants - Appellants,

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Party-in-interest,
    and
    BAIRD TECHNOLOGIES, INCORPORATED,
    Defendant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
    District Judge. (CA-93-1631-A)

    Submitted:

    September 29, 2003

    Decided:

    October 22, 2003

    Before LUTTIG and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Joel Z. Robinson, LAW OFFICES JOEL Z. ROBINSON & COMPANY, New York,
    New York, for Appellants.
    J. William Koegel, Jr., STEPTOE &
    JOHNSON, L.L.P., Washington, D.C., for Appellees.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Pentagen

    Technologies

    International

    appeals

    the

    district

    courts order denying the motion to reopen a 1994 declaratory


    judgment as predicated on fraud.
    find no reversible error.

    We have reviewed the record and

    Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons

    stated by the district court.

    See CACI Intl Inc. v. Pentagen

    Techs. Intl Ltd., No. CA-93-1631-A (E.D. Va. Aug. 30, 2002).

    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

    You might also like