Lanier disputes he had authority on the staffing agencies and disagrees which he managed the D.C. companies.

right Here, Lanier takes problem with all the region court's statements that he“continued to be actively tangled up in the D.C. organizations' administration. that he“conceded his supervisory authority” over two of the “staffing” agencies—Pinnacle and DOLMF—and” Order at 43-44, 50 (Doc. 281).

Regardless of how Lanier chooses to characterize his relationships using the staffing agencies in addition to D.C. companies, evidence demonstrates that he had been “squarely in the center of the deceptive enterprise.” Id. at 74. Lanier offered no proof to dispute which he and their co-defendants put up the D.C. businesses, which he administered the “of counsel” community on the part of those companies, which he permitted the organizations to gain access to their reports to process customer repayments, or which he proceeded to manage the principals of this organizations as “friends.” Id. at 49-50. Consequently, Lanier's denial is inadequate evidence “for a jury to come back a verdict” in their benefit, and therefore summary judgment ended up being appropriate. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249.

Finally, Lanier contends that the region court erred to locate that “the most example that is egregious of conduct by Lanier Law and also the DC firms was making use of the commercial Stimulus Flyer.” Order at 51 (Doc. 281). Lanier contends that the region court wrongly determined he had utilized the Flyer, in light of his testimony doubting involvement that is“any any advertising materials.” Appellant's Br.