Filed: Oct. 17, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS For the Fifth Circuit _ No. 01-30524 Summary Calendar _ In the matter of: WILLIAM PAUL LAWRENCE, II, Debtor, WILLIAM PAUL LAWRENCE, II; AND LAWRENCE & CO., INC. Appellants, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; DAVIDSON NIX & JONES, Appellees. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, Shreveport Division (00-CV-1775) _ October 16, 2001 Before DAVIS, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* After reviewing the recor
Summary: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS For the Fifth Circuit _ No. 01-30524 Summary Calendar _ In the matter of: WILLIAM PAUL LAWRENCE, II, Debtor, WILLIAM PAUL LAWRENCE, II; AND LAWRENCE & CO., INC. Appellants, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; DAVIDSON NIX & JONES, Appellees. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, Shreveport Division (00-CV-1775) _ October 16, 2001 Before DAVIS, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* After reviewing the record..
More
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS For the Fifth Circuit ___________________________ No. 01-30524 Summary Calendar ___________________________ In the matter of: WILLIAM PAUL LAWRENCE, II, Debtor, WILLIAM PAUL LAWRENCE, II; AND LAWRENCE & CO., INC. Appellants, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; DAVIDSON NIX & JONES, Appellees. ___________________________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, Shreveport Division (00-CV-1775) ___________________________________________________ October 16, 2001 Before DAVIS, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* After reviewing the record and the briefs of the parties, we are satisfied that the district court correctly rejected appellant’s appeal from the order of the bankruptcy court. We therefore affirm the judgment of the district court essentially * Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4. for the reasons stated in the district court’s memorandum ruling of March 23, 2001, AFFIRMED.
