Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Musika v. Butler, 96-2477 (1997)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-2477 Visitors: 12
Filed: Dec. 18, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-2477 In Re: EDWARD R. BUTLER, Debtor. _ TERRY L. MUSIKA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus EDWARD R. BUTLER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Alexander Harvey II, Senior District Judge. (CA-96-1855-H, BK-90-5-308-JS, CA-96-1881-H, BK-90-5-3087- JS, ADV-91-5-5430-JS) Submitted: December 2, 1997 Decided: December 18, 1997 Before HAMILTON, WILLIAMS, and
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-2477 In Re: EDWARD R. BUTLER, Debtor. _________________________ TERRY L. MUSIKA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus EDWARD R. BUTLER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Alexander Harvey II, Senior District Judge. (CA-96-1855-H, BK-90-5-308-JS, CA-96-1881-H, BK-90-5-3087- JS, ADV-91-5-5430-JS) Submitted: December 2, 1997 Decided: December 18, 1997 Before HAMILTON, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Edward R. Butler, Appellant Pro Se. Kenneth Oestreicher, WHITE- FORD, TAYLOR & PRESTON, Baltimore, Maryland; Terry L. Musika, UNITED STATES TRUSTEE, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order affirming the bankruptcy court's orders denying Appellant's motions for re- consideration of the orders approving the settlement of a claim of the bankruptcy estate and approving payment of compensation to the attorneys for the Trustee. We have reviewed the record and the dis- trict court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Musika v. Butler, Nos. CA-96-1855-H; BK-90-5-308-JS; CA-96-1881-H; BK-90-5-3087-JS; ADV-91-5-5430-JS (D. Md. Sept. 11, 1996). 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
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer