USA v. Palmer, et al.,
Case Date: 09/17/1992
Docket No: 91-2274
|
September 17, 1992 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION] ____________________ No. 91-2274 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, Appellee, v. ANN M. PALMER, ET AL., Defendants, Appellants.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. ________ |