In Re: Advanced Telecommunication Network, Inc.

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
Nos. 10-14307; 10-14308 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ JUNE 8, 2011
JOHN LEY
CLERK
IN RE:
lllllllllllllllllllllADVANCED TELECOMMUNICATION NETWORK, INC.
lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllDebtor.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6:10-cv-00381-JA, 6:03-bk-00299-KSJ

DANIEL W. ALLEN,
DAVID D. ALLEN,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

versus

ADVANCED TELECOMMUNICATION NETWORK INC.,

Defendant - Appellee,

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6:10-cv-00731-JA, 6:03-bk-00299-KSJ

ADVANCED TELECOMMUNICATION NETWORK INC.,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus
DANIEL W. ALLEN,
DAVID D. ALLEN,

Defendants - Appellants.

________________________

Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________

(June 8, 2011)

Before EDMONDSON and MARCUS, Circuit Judges, and LAWSON,* District Judge.

PER CURIAM:

In this bankruptcy case, Daniel W. Allen and David D. Allen (collectively,

“the Allens”) appeal the district court’s August 31, 2010 order dismissing the

Allens’ appeal of the bankruptcy court’s January 15, 2010 final judgment in favor

of Advanced Telecommunication Network, Inc. The district court found that the

settlement agreement executed by the parties in 2005 barred the Allens from

appealing the bankruptcy court’s January 15, 2010 final judgment. The Allens

argue that the district court erred in dismissing their appeal because the language

__________________

* Honorable Hugh Lawson, United States District Judge for the Middle District of
Georgia, sitting by designation.

2
of the settlement agreement is ambiguous and can be interpreted in a manner that

would allow their appeal to proceed. After thorough review, we affirm the district

court’s well-reasoned order dated August 31, 2010 dismissing the Allens’ appeal

because the language of the settlement agreement is unambiguous and bars the

Allens from appealing the bankruptcy court’s January 15, 2010 final judgment.

AFFIRMED.

3