Smith-Barney, Inc. v. Teitler

USCA1 Opinion [NOT FOR PUBLICATION] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT ____________________ No. 97-1009 SMITH-BARNEY, INC., Plaintiff, Appellee, v. URSULA EKINCI, Defendant, Appellee. __________ STANLEY A. TEITLER, P.C., Defendant, Appellant. ____________________ APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE [Hon. D. Brock Hornby, U.S. District Judge] ___________________ ____________________ Before Selya, Circuit Judge, _____________ Bownes, Senior Circuit Judge, ____________________ and Boudin, Circuit Judge. _____________ ____________________ Stanley A. Teitler, Stanley A. Teitler, P.C. and Scott Goldstein ___________________ _________________________ _______________ on brief for appellant Stanley A. Teitler, P.C. Andrew M. Horton and Verrill & Dana on brief for appellee Smith _________________ _______________ Barney, Inc. Douglas F. Jennings on brief for appellee Ursula Ekinci. ___________________ ____________________ JUNE 18, 1997 ____________________ Per Curiam. Upon careful consideration of the parties' __________ briefs and the record, we find appellant's contentions to be without merit. The district court's order correctly explained the validity and priority of the competing claims. Smith Barney, Inc. v. Ekinci, 937 F.Supp. 59 (D. Me. 1996). __________________ ______ Affirmed. See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1. ________ ___ -2-