Filed: Jul. 16, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-1790 DEBORAH J. PRUNTY; THE DEBORAH J. PRUNTY LIVING TRUST, Plaintiffs – Appellants, v. ROY M. TERRY, JR., Defendant – Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (3:09-cv-00220-HEH) Submitted: June 22, 2010 Decided: July 16, 2010 Before KING, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ann M.
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-1790 DEBORAH J. PRUNTY; THE DEBORAH J. PRUNTY LIVING TRUST, Plaintiffs – Appellants, v. ROY M. TERRY, JR., Defendant – Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (3:09-cv-00220-HEH) Submitted: June 22, 2010 Decided: July 16, 2010 Before KING, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ann M. C..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-1790
DEBORAH J. PRUNTY; THE DEBORAH J. PRUNTY LIVING TRUST,
Plaintiffs – Appellants,
v.
ROY M. TERRY, JR.,
Defendant – Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (3:09-cv-00220-HEH)
Submitted: June 22, 2010 Decided: July 16, 2010
Before KING, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ann M. Callaway, ANN M. CALLAWAY PC, Warrenton, Virginia, for
Appellants. John Craig Smith, DURRETTEBRADSHAW, PLC, Richmond,
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Deborah J. Prunty and the Deborah J. Prunty Living
Trust appeal from the district court’s order upholding the
bankruptcy court’s determination that Prunty received an
interest in the debtor’s property that was avoidable as a
preferential transfer pursuant to 11 U.S.C.A. § 547(b) (West
2004 & Supp. 2010). Our review of the record and the briefs
filed by the parties discloses no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court. Prunty v. Terry, No. 3:09-cv-00220-HEH (E.D. Va. June 1,
2009). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
2