UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-1988
In Re: BEVERLY BYRD; RALPH T. BYRD,
Debtors.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
BEVERLY BYRD; RALPH T. BYRD,
Plaintiffs – Appellants,
v.
JAMES M. HOFFMAN,
Defendant – Appellee,
and
GREGORY P. JOHNSON,
Trustee.
No. 08-1989
In Re: BEVERLY BYRD; RALPH T. BYRD,
Debtors.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
BEVERLY BYRD; RALPH T. BYRD,
Plaintiffs – Appellants,
v.
JAMES M. HOFFMAN,
Defendant – Appellee,
and
GREGORY P. JOHNSON,
Trustee.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District
of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District
Judge. (8:07-cv-02960-AW; 8:07-cv-03049-AW)
Submitted: November 17, 2009 Decided: November 19, 2009
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ralph T. Byrd, Laytonsville, Maryland, for Appellants. Stephen
A. Metz, John D. Sadler, SHULMAN, ROGERS, GANDAL, PORDY & ECKER,
P.A., Potomac, Maryland; James M. Hoffman, OFFIT KURMAN,
Bethesda, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Beverly and Ralph Byrd appeal from the district
court’s orders affirming the bankruptcy court’s orders finding
them in contempt and imposing sanctions against them for
(1) failing to timely to produce documents and information as
ordered by the bankruptcy court and (2) willfully violating the
automatic stay and the Barton Doctrine, * and the injunction
order issued by the bankruptcy court. We have reviewed the
record on appeal and the briefs filed by the parties and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated
by the district court. Byrd v. Hoffman, Nos. 8:07-cv-02960-AW;
8:07-cv-03049-AW (D. Md., July 31, 2008; filed July 30; entered
July 31, 2008). 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
*
Barton v. Barbour, 104 U.S. 126, 127 (1881) (requiring
that, “before suit is brought against a receiver, leave of the
court by which he was appointed must be obtained”).
3