Opinion
No. 16-1656
03-31-2017
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.
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, Alexandria, Virginia; Dana J. Boente, United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
UNPUBLISHED
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) 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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 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