Filed:   July 3, 1997


                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT



                          No. 96-2618
            (CA-96-2040-Y, BK-95-57331, AP-95-5647)



James Arlin Ramsey,

                                                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

David F. Bernstein,

                                             Defendant - Appellant.




                             O R D E R


     The Court amends its opinion filed May 27, 1997, as follows:

     On the cover sheet, section 3, line 4 -- the district court's
number is corrected to read CA-96- 2040-Y.
                                      For the Court - By Direction



                                         /s/ Patricia S. Connor

                                                     Clerk
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

In Re: DAVID F. BERNSTEIN,
Debtor.

JAMES ARLIN RAMSEY,
                                                              No. 96-2618
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

DAVID F. BERNSTEIN,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Joseph H. Young, Senior District Judge.
(CA-96-2040-Y, BK-95-57331, AP-95-5647)

Submitted: May 6, 1997

Decided: May 27, 1997

Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and
PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

S. Rod Acchiardo, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Daniel Joseph
Mellin, HILLMAN, BROWN & DARROW, P.A., Annapolis, Mary-
land, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

David Bernstein appeals from the district court's order affirming
the bankruptcy court's decision that a Virginia judgment against
Bernstein was nondischargeable. Bernstein asserts that he should not
be collaterally estopped from relitigating in the bankruptcy court the
issues associated with the Virginia judgment because the record relied
upon by the bankruptcy court was insufficient to permit a conclusion
that the issues were actually litigated in the Virginia proceeding. After
reviewing the record and the district court's opinion, we find no
reversible error.

Specifically, Bernstein contends that the full transcript of the state
court proceeding must be reviewed before the bankruptcy court can
determine that an issue was actually and necessarily litigated in the
earlier suit. Bernstein's claim is without merit because bankruptcy
courts are not required to take extrinsic evidence before a prior civil
judgment is assigned a preclusive effect.1 A debtor is estopped from
relitigating an issue in a discharge proceeding if the examination of
the record of the earlier proceeding satisfies the bankruptcy court that
the issue was raised and litigated and that the issue was necessary to
the verdict in the prior case.2 In this case, the bankruptcy court exam-
ined the record and concluded that the pertinent issues were litigated
and necessary for the jury's verdict in the Virginia proceeding.
Accordingly, the bankruptcy court did not err in finding Bernstein
collaterally estopped from relitigating the Virginia judgment in the
bankruptcy court.

We therefore affirm the order of the district court. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are ade-
_________________________________________________________________

1 Combs v. Richardson, 

, 114 (4th Cir. 1988).

2 

in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                   3