Whether pro se plaintiffs can challenge a district court judgment affirmed by an appellate court after a jury trial involving claims of breach of contract, trespass, and invasion of privacy

No question identified. : 2. Our car was totaled. So, we are having transportation problems as well. We depend on the public library. 3. We filed In forma pauperis in this case. 4. The Order was filed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit on July 29, 2025. The Mandate was filed on August 6, 2025. (Please see attached) WHEREAS, for all the reasons herein, and in the interest of fairness and justice, we hope this Court will grant this Motion. Respectfiilly submitted, i 2 Joseph Norris III Amanda Norris 8616 Inwood Rd. Windsor Mill, MD 21244 (410) 907-5185 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on September _/ @ 2025 Iserved a copy of this Motion on all parties, postage prepaid first class mail addressed as shown below: Daniel J. Tobin, Ballard Spahr LLP, 1909 K. St., NW, 12" F1., Washington, DC 20006. Counsel for Respondent PNC Bank, N.A. Matthew Berkowitz, Carr Maloney, 2000 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, suite 8001, Washington, DC 20006, Counsel for Respondent Safeguard Properties Aylin ~ V rod Amanda Norris 2 USCA4 Appeal: 23-1736 Doc: 33 Filed: 04/10/2025 Pg: 1 of2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 23-1736 AMANDA NORRIS; JOSEPH NORRIS, III, Plaintiffs Appellants, v. SAFEGUARD PROPERTIES; PNC BANK, N.A., Defendants Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Ellen Lipton Hollander, Senior District Judge. (1:20-cv-03315-ELH) Submitted: March 6, 2025 Decided: April 10, 2025 Before WILKINSON and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Amanda Norris, Joseph Norris, III, Appellants Pro Se. Matthew D. Berkowitz, Kelsey Blair Williams, CARR MALONEY, PC, Washington, D.C., for Appellee Safeguard Properties. Daniel J. Tobin, BALLARD SPAHR, LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellee PNC Bank, N.A. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-1736 Doc: 33 Filed: 04/10/2025 Pg: 2of2 PER CURIAM: Amanda Norris and Joseph Norris, III (“Plaintiffs”), appeal the district court’s judgment in favor of PNC Bank, N.A., and Safeguard Properties following a jury trial on Plaintiffs’ claims of breach of contract, trespass, and invasion of privacy. Before addressing the merits of the appeal, we grant Plaintiffs’ motion to exceed the length limitations for informal briefs. With respect to Plaintiffs’ motion to extend the filing time for their informal brief and to request a transcript at government expense, we grant that motion in part as to Plaintiffs’ request to extend the filing time and deny it in part as to Plaintiffs’ request for a transcript. In addition, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Plaintiffs’ remaining pending motions, and we affirm the district court’s judgment. Norris v. PNC Bank, N.A., No. 1:20-cv-03315-ELH (D. Md. June 29, 2023). 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 FILED: July 29, 2025 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 23-1736 (1:20-cv-033 15-ELH) AMANDA NORRIS; JOSEPH NORRIS, III Plaintiffs Appellants Vv. SAFEGUARD PROPERTIES; PNC BANK, N.A. Defendants Appellees ORDER The court grants the motion to exceed length limitations. The petition for rehearing en banc was circulated to the full court. No judge requested a poll under Fed. R. App. P. 40. The court denies the petition for rehearing en banc. For the Court /s/ Nwamaka Anowi, Clerk FILED: August 6, 2025 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 23-1736 (1:20-cv-03315-ELH) AMANDA NORRIS; JOSEPH NORRIS, III Plaintiffs Appellants v. SAFEGUARD PROPERTIES; PNC BANK, N.A. Defendants Appellees MANDATE The judgment of this court, entered April 10, 2025, takes effect today. This constitutes the formal mandate of this court issued pursuant to Rul