USCA4 Appeal: 22-1992 Doc: 15 Filed: 03/14/2024 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-1992

BARBARA SOPKIN, Citizen of Israel in Her Capacity as Assignee of Lucre Investments Ltd, General Partner of Interlase Limited Partnership, a Georgia Limited Partnership, and in a Derivative Action for Interlase Limited Partnership,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

JILL C. MENDELSON, Executor of Estate of Richard S. Mendelson, Deceased; RICHARD S. MENDELSON TRUST, H. Carter Land III, Trustee; LAND, CARROLL & BLAIR, P.C., f/k/a Land Clark Carroll Mendelson Blair P.C.; ANN NICOLE KATHAN,

Defendants – Appellees,

and

JOHN TOOTHMAN, Attorney; MADELINE TRAINOR, Attorney; JOHN DOES 1-5, Trustees of Richard S. Mendelson Trust; H. JASON GOLD, Attorney,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:16-cv-01146-CMH-IDD)

Submitted: February 1, 2024 Decided: March 14, 2024

Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge. USCA4 Appeal: 22-1992 Doc: 15 Filed: 03/14/2024 Pg: 2 of 3

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Barbara Sopkin, Appellant Pro Se. Robert E. Draim, HUDGINS LAW FIRM, PC, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 22-1992 Doc: 15 Filed: 03/14/2024 Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Barbara Sopkin appeals the district court’s September 1, 2022, order granting

Appellees’ motions for sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 and directing Sopkin to pay a

monetary sanction. After reviewing the record and the parties’ arguments on appeal, we

discern no reversible error. See In re Bees,

(4th Cir. 2009) (explaining

standard of review). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Sopkin v.

Mendelson, No. 1:16-cv-01146-CMH-IDD (E.D. Va., Sept. 1, 2022). 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