F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
NOV 1 2000
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
LIMITED GAMING OF AMERICA,
INC.,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 99-5241
(D.C. No. 98-CV-134-K)
DORAN, WALTERS, ROST, SELTER (N.D. Okla.)
& WOLFE, sued as: Doran, Walters,
Rost, Selter & Wolfe, P.A.;
THEODORE R. DORAN,
Individually; LAWRENCE G.
WALTERS, Individually; SCOTT R.
ROST, Individually; AARON R.
WOLFE, Individually,
Defendants-Appellants.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before TACHA , EBEL , and LUCERO , Circuit Judges.
Defendants-appellants appeal from the district court ’s ruling denying their
motion for sanctions against Limited Gaming of America, Inc. (LGA) pursuant to
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, 28 U.S.C. § 1927, and the court’s inherent powers. Our
jurisdiction over this appeal arises from 28 U.S.C. § 1291. 1
On appeal, appellants
do not challenge the district court ’s denial of Rule 11 sanctions, apparently
abandoning that claim. See State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Mhoon , 31 F.3d 979,
984 n.7 (10th Cir. 1994). This court reviews the district court ’s ruling on the
motion for sanctions only for abuse of discretion. See Martinez v. Roscoe ,
100 F.3d 121, 123 (10th Cir. 1996) (reviewing inherent powers to impose
sanctions); RTC v. Dabney , 73 F.3d 262, 265 (10th Cir. 1995) (reviewing
sanctions pursuant to § 1927).
After careful review of the record in light of appellants’ arguments, the
applicable law, and the deferential standard of review, we conclude that the
district court ’s decision to deny the motion for sanctions was not an abuse of
discretion. Further, we agree with LGA that appellants’ arguments on appeal fail
to challenge the legal or factual basis of the district court ’s decision in light of
the standard of review. Appellants instead contend that the district court
improperly and incorrectly weighed the evidence and the inferences to be drawn
therefrom. In determining whether the district court abused its discretion, we do
1
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral
argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument.
-2-
not reweigh the evidence, but determine only whether that court ’s decision was
based on an erroneous view of the law or a clearly erroneous assessment of the
evidence. See FDIC v. United Pac. Ins. Co. , 152 F.3d 1266, 1272 (10th Cir.
1998); Barrett v. Tallon , 30 F.3d 1296, 1302 (10th Cir. 1994).
The judgment is AFFIRMED.
Entered for the Court
Carlos F. Lucero
Circuit Judge
-3-