Whether a district court abuses its discretion in denying a motion to dissolve a preliminary injunction when reviewing the underlying factual findings for clear error

No question identified. : WHEREFORE, the Petitioner respectfully requests that an order be entered extending the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari for 59 days. The petitioner will file the writ on or before April 28, 2024. Dated: February 26, 2024. Respectfully submitted. : Sidikatu Raji 9125 Belvedere Dr Frederick, MD 21704 301-728-3421 Certificate of service. I, Sidikatu Raji, certify that I have, on this day, 2/26/2024, served the foregoing motion for an extension of time. to file a Petition for Writ of Certiorari by first class mail. Postage. Prepaid. Address to: Timothy M. Hurley, Esq., Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP, 100 S Charles Street, Suite 1600 Baltimore, MD 21201. Sidikatu Raji EXHIBIT A FILED: November 28, 2023 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 23-1222 (8:22-cv-01623-BPG) OMAHA PROPERTY MANAGER, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company Plaintiff Appellee v. KAMAL MUSTAFA Defendant Appellant and SIDIKATU RAJI; OMAHA PROPERTY MANAGER, LLC, a Maryland Limited Liability Company, OMAHA PROPERTY MANAGER, LLC, an IWinois Limited Liability Company; NDF1, LLC Defendants ORDER Upon consideration of submissions relative to the motion to reconsider, which the court construes as a petition for rehearing, the court denies the petition. Entered at the direction of the panel: Judge Harris, Judge Richardson, and Judge Heytens. For the Court /s/ Nwamaka Anowi, Clerk USVUA4 APpedl. 20-1222 VOL, 20 Pieu, 1UfZ4iZuZzo ry. 1014 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 23-1222 OMAHA PROPERTY MANAGER, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Plaintiff Appellee, v. KAMAL MUSTAFA, Defendant Appellant, and. SIDIKATU RAJI; OMAHA PROPERTY MANAGER, LLC, a Maryland Limited Liability Company; OMAHA PROPERTY MANAGER, LLC, an Illinois Limited Liability Company; NDF1, LLC, Defendants. No. 23-1223 OMAHA PROPERTY MANAGER, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Plaintiff Appellee, v. SIDIKATU RAJI, Defendant Appellant, and UOUAS APpedl. 40-1222 DVL, 20 TleUu., IU/44/2UL9 ry.24u0i¢ KAMAL MUSTAFA; OMAHA PROPERTY MANAGER, LLC, a Maryland Limited Liability Company; OMAHA PROPERTY MANAGER, LLC, an Illinois Limited Liability Company; NDF1, LLC, Defendants. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. George Jarrod Hazel, District Judge. (8:22-cv-01623-BPG) Submitted: October 16, 2023 Decided: October 24, 2023 Before HARRIS, RICHARDSON, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kamal Mustafa, Sidikatu Raji, Appellants Pro Se. Timothy McDevitt Hurley, NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. UOUA4 Appedl. 20-1222 vuyv,. 20 rieu. 124/229 ry. 9014 PER CURIAM: In these consolidated interlocutory appeals, Kamal Mustafa and Sidikatu Raji seek review of the district court’s order denying Mustafa’s motion to dismiss, denying his motion to dissolve the preliminary injunction imposed by the court, and granting Plaintiff, Omaha Property Manager, LLC’s motion for contempt and for sanctions. We affirm the district court’s order denying the motion to dissolve the injunction and dismiss the appeals as to the remaining issues. Before addressing the merits of these appeals, we first must assure that we have jurisdiction. Williamson v. Stirling, 912 F.3d 154, 168 (4th Cir. 2018). An order “refusing to dissolve or modify [an] injunction[]” is an immediately appealable interlocutory order. 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). We review the district court’s denial of a motion to dissolve a preliminary injunction for an abuse of discretion, reviewing the district court’s factual findings underlying its decision for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo. See Fed. Trade Comm’n vy. Simple Health Plans LLC, 58 F 4th 1322, 1327 (11th Cir. 2023); Dewhurst v. Century Aluminum Co., 649 F.3d 287, 290 (4th C