F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
MAY 27 2004
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
In re:
DONALD E. ARMSTRONG, No. 03-4177
(BAP No. UT-02-007)
Debtor. (BAP)
DONALD E. ARMSTRONG,
Appellant,
v.
KENNETH A. RUSHTON, Trustee;
STEPPES APARTMENTS, LTD.,
Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before McCONNELL, ANDERSON, and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
Appellant Donald E. Armstrong appeals a judgment of the Bankruptcy
Appellate Panel of this Circuit (BAP) affirming a temporary allowance order and
rejecting Armstrong’s argument that the order was void because the bankruptcy
judge eventually recused herself. Our jurisdiction arises under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d)
and, although we are reviewing a judgment of the BAP, we independently
review the underlying decision of the bankruptcy court. United States v. Myers
(In re Myers), 362 F.3d 667, 670 (10th Cir. 2004).
We review the decision to allow a temporary claim under the Federal Rules
of Bankruptcy Procedure § 3018(a) for abuse of discretion. See generally
In re Marin Town Ctr., 142 B.R. 374, 379 (N.D. Cal. 1992). Under that standard,
the decision of the bankruptcy court will not be overturned unless we are firmly
and definitely convinced that the court made a clear error of judgment or
exceeded the bounds of permissible choice. Moothart v. Bell, 21 F.3d 1499, 1504
(10th Cir. 1994).
In his opening brief, Armstrong lists eleven issues, many of which have
nothing to do with the temporary allowance order that is the subject of this
-2-
2
appeal. Those extraneous issues either go to the validity of the confirmed plan 1
or to cases and judgments over which this court has no jurisdiction.
With respect to the temporary allowance order, we have reviewed the
briefs, the record, and the applicable law pursuant to the above-mentioned
standards, and we determine that Armstrong has established no reversible error in
this case. As we have noted in several other decisions issued this day, the fact
that the BAP has recently found that the bankruptcy court lacked jurisdiction to
enter criminal contempt sanctions against Armstrong in a related matter has no
bearing on this appeal. Armstrong’s motion to file a supplemental appendix is
GRANTED. The judgment of the BAP is AFFIRMED for substantially the same
reasons stated by that panel in its order filed May 9, 2003. The mandate shall
issue forthwith.
Entered for the Court
Bobby R. Baldock
Circuit Judge
1
We have today held that the BAP correctly dismissed the appeal from the
bankruptcy court order confirming the plan. See Armstrong v. Rushton ,
No. 02-4101 (10th Cir. ____________ 2004).
-3-