Legal Opinion
Miller v. Holzmann
District Court, District of Columbia
Decided March 8, 2007No. CA 95-01231 (RCL/JMF)PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION
FACCIOLA, United States Magistrate Judge.
Before me is Defendant Roy Anderson’s Expedited Motion to Enforce His Settlement Agreement with, the United States and Memorandum of Law in Support (“Motion”). For the reasons stated below, the motion will be denied.
There is no genuine issue as to the following material facts.
1. On November 16, 2004, Carolyn G. Mark, Esq., Senior Trial Counsel with Civil Division of the U.S. Attorney’s Office (“Mark”), transmitted to counsel for the defendant E. Roy Anderson (“Anderson”) a draft settlement agreement. An accompanying letter indicated…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Edmund J. Flynn Co. v. LaVayDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1981
- Stansel v. American Security BankDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1988
- Steven R. Perles PC v. Kagy, Anne MarieCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2007
- Osborne v. Howard University Physicians, Inc.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2006
3Cited by5 opinions
- Blackstone Ex Rel. Estate of Whitley v. BrinkDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2014
- Ascom Hasler Mailing Systems, Inc. v. United States Postal ServiceDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2012
- Demissie v. Starbucks Corporate Office & HeadquartersDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2015
- Demissie v. Starbucks Corporate Office & HeadquartersCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2017
- Sellers, Jr. v. Anthem, Inc.District Court, District of Columbia · 2022