Milo Shammas v. Michelle Lee


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:12-cv-01462-TSE-TCB. Copies to all parties and the district court. [1000053088]. [16-1656]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-1656 Doc: 33 Filed: 03/31/2017 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1656 MILO SHAMMAS, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. MICHELLE LEE, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. (1:12-cv-01462-TSE-TCB) Submitted: March 23, 2017 Decided: March 31, 2017 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Steffin, Armin Azod, Century City, California, Mark Baker, STEFFIN AZOD LLP, New York, New York; Carl E. Jennison, John N. Jennison, JENNISON & SHULTZ, P.C., Arlington, Virginia, for Appellant. Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Mark R. Freeman, Jaynie Lilley, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.; Nathan K. Kelley, Solicitor, Thomas W. Krause, Deputy Solicitor, Christina J. Hieber, Thomas L. Casagrande, Associate Solicitors, UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE, Appeal: 16-1656 Doc: 33 Filed: 03/31/2017 Pg: 2 of 3 Alexandria, Virginia; Dana J. Boente, United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 Appeal: 16-1656 Doc: 33 Filed: 03/31/2017 Pg: 3 of 3 PER CURIAM: Milo Shammas appeals the district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for relief from a judgment awarding expenses in this trademark action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Shammas v. Lee, No. 1:12-cv-01462-TSE-TCB (E.D. Va. May 9, 2016). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 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?