No syfertize treatment data for this case.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
White
v.
Disciplinary Commit
v.
Disciplinary Commit
Unpublished
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-2534
In Re: ELVIRA M. WHITE
_________________________
ELVIRA M. WHITE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF THIS COURT, UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF
MARYLAND,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge. (CA-97-170)
Submitted: August 31, 1998 Decided: September 17, 1998
Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Elvira M. White, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Joseph Immelt, HOGAN & HARTSON, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-2534
In Re: ELVIRA M. WHITE
_________________________
ELVIRA M. WHITE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF THIS COURT, UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF
MARYLAND,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge. (CA-97-170)
Submitted: August 31, 1998 Decided: September 17, 1998
Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Elvira M. White, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Joseph Immelt, HOGAN & HARTSON, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Elvira M. White appeals the order of the United States Dis- trict Court for the District of Maryland indefinitely suspending her from practicing law before that court. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the disciplinary committee’s recommendation and find no abuse of discretion. Accord- ingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. White v. Disciplinary Comm., No. CA-97-170 (D. Md. Oct. 1, 1997). We dis- pense 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
[*2]