Honour Technical Group, Inc. v. US

Filing 920090602

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1878 HONOUR TECHNICAL GROUP, INC.; BRIAN K. HONOUR, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY; INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE; PAUL CLEMENT, Solicitor General, Defendants - Appellees. No. 09-1138 HONOUR TECHNICAL GROUP, INC.; BRIAN K. HONOUR, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY; INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE; PAUL CLEMENT, Solicitor General, Defendants Appellees. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever, III, District Judge. (5:07-cv-00472-D) Submitted: May 28, 2009 Decided: June 2, 2009 Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Brian K. Honour, Appellant Pro Se. Sara Ann Ketchum, David I. Pincus, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, DC, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Honour Technical Group, Inc., and Brian K. Honour seek to appeal the district court's orders dismissing their action without prejudice and denying their subsequent motions to expedite and to reopen the case. pertain to Honour Technical We dismiss the appeals as they Inc., because it is not Group, represented by counsel and a corporation may not proceed pro se in federal court. See Rowland v. California Men's Colony, 506 U.S. 194, 202 (1993) ("A corporation may appear in the federal courts pending that a only through for licensed counsel."). of this on We also deny the motions reconsideration may not court's appeal position without corporation proceed representation by counsel. Turning to Honour's claims as an individual, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the appeals as they pertain to Brian K. Honour for the reasons stated by the district court. Honour Tech. Group, Inc. v. United States, No. 5:07-cv-00472-D (E.D.N.C. May 27, 2008). 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 IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?