Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Bane v. Affordable Efficiencies, 99-1102 (1999)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 99-1102 Visitors: 22
Filed: Jul. 14, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1102 In Re: ROY ANDREW BANE, Debtor. _ ROY ANDREW BANE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus AFFORDABLE EFFICIENCIES, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee, and J. GLENWOOD STRICKLER, Trustee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge. (CA-98-419-R, BK-97-67-13-RKR, AP-97-78-7, AP-97-79-7) Submitted: July 8, 1999 Decided: July 14, 1999 Befor
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1102 In Re: ROY ANDREW BANE, Debtor. _________________________ ROY ANDREW BANE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus AFFORDABLE EFFICIENCIES, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee, and J. GLENWOOD STRICKLER, Trustee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge. (CA-98-419-R, BK-97-67-13-RKR, AP-97-78-7, AP-97-79-7) Submitted: July 8, 1999 Decided: July 14, 1999 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gary Michael Bowman, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellant. William Worthington Terry, III, WETHERINGTON, MELCHIONNA, TERRY, DAY & AMMAR, P.C., Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Roy Andrew Bane appeals from the district court’s order dis- missing as moot his appeal from the bankruptcy court’s order lift- ing the automatic stay and allowing the Appellee to sell restaurant equipment owned by Bane. Our review of the record and the opinions below discloses no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Bane v. Affordable Effi- ciencies, Inc., Nos. CA-98-419-R; BK-97-67-13-RKR (W.D. Va. Dec. 16, 1998). 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