UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-1748
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
JOHN J. RACHEL; RGI, INCORPORATED, a Virginia Corporation;
CSM, INCORPORATED, a Maryland Corporation,
Defendants – Appellants.
No. 09-2183
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
PRISCILLA RACHEL,
Defendant – Appellant,
and
JOHN J. RACHEL; RGI, INCORPORATED, a Virginia Corporation;
CSM, INCORPORATED, a Maryland Corporation,
Defendants.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District
of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, Senior
District Judge. (1:02-cv-00754-WMN)
Argued: May 10, 2011 Decided: June 7, 2011
Before WILKINSON and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and David C. NORTON,
Chief United States District Judge for the District of South
Carolina, sitting by designation.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ARGUED: Edward Jay Tolchin, FETTMANN, TOLCHIN & MAJORS, PC,
Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellants. Michael Anthony DiPietro,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee. ON BRIEF: Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney,
Jamie M. Bennett, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
The United States filed this civil action against John
Rachel, Priscilla Rachel, RGI, Inc., and CSM, Inc. Pertinent to
this appeal, the government asserted five causes of action:
Counts 1-3 (False Claims Act violations); Count 7 (Payment Under
Mistake of Fact); and Count 8 (Unjust Enrichment). Following
trial, the jury returned a verdict on all counts in favor of
Priscilla Rachel, and against John Rachel, RGI, Inc., and CSM,
Inc. Thereafter, the district court denied various post-trial
motions and entered final judgment in accord with the verdict.
On appeal, Priscilla Rachel contends that the district
court erred in denying her post-trial motion for attorneys’ fees
and costs. John Rachel, RGI, Inc., and CSM, Inc. contend that
the court erred in denying their post-trial motion for judgment
as a matter of law, asserting various grounds. After having the
benefit of oral argument and carefully reviewing the briefs,
record, and controlling legal authorities, we find no reversible
error in the district court’s disposition of these issues.
Accordingly, we affirm substantially on the reasoning of the
district court. See J.A. 39-53 (memorandum and order denying
post-trial motion of John Rachel, RGI, Inc., and CSM, Inc.);
J.A. 56-60 (memorandum and order denying post-trial motion of
Priscilla Rachel).
AFFIRMED
3