UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
No. 01-30634
Summary Calendar
_____________________
In The Matter Of: JO ANN LACOSTE ULMER,
Debtor,
DAN FRISARD,
Appellant,
versus
PAUL N. DEBAILLON,
Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
(01-CV-806-F)
November 5, 2001
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Dan Frisard appeals, pro se, the dismissal of his appeal from
the bankruptcy court’s disallowing his claims in the underlying
bankruptcy case. In granting the trustee’s motion to dismiss, the
district court ruled: “Frisard has not complied with Rule 8006 of
the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure because he failed to
properly designate the record before this Court”. In re Jo Ann
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
Lacoste Ulmer, No. 01-CV-0806-F (E.D. La. 23 Apr. 2001) (minute
entry granting motion to dismiss).
“This court has jurisdiction to hear ‘appeals from all final
decisions, judgments, orders, and decrees’” entered by district
courts in their 28 U.S.C. § 158 appellate capacity. Aegis
Specialty Mktg. Inc, et al. v. Ferlita, (In re Aegis Specialty
Mktg. Inc. of Ala.), 68 F.3d 919, 921 (5th Cir. 1995) (quoting 28
U.S.C. § 158(d)). The district court’s judgment “end[ed] a
discrete judicial unit in the larger case ... and is a final
judgment for the purposes of section § 158(d)”. England v. FDIC
(In re England), 975 F.2d 1168, 1172 (5th Cir. 1992).
“We review actions taken by the district court in its
appellate role for an abuse of discretion.... A district court
abuses its discretion when its decision is based on an erroneous
view of the law.” Zer-Ilan v. Frankford (In re CPDC Inc.), 221
F.3d 693, 698 (5th Cir. 2000) (internal citations omitted).
“Furthermore ... in reviewing a district court’s dismissal of a
bankruptcy appeal for non-jurisdictional defects under Federal Rule
of Bankruptcy Procedure 8001(a), we should review the district
court’s action with attention to the prejudicial effect of delay on
the appellees and the bona fides of the appellant.” Id. (internal
quotations omitted).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing
Frisard’s appeal. Rule 8001(a) provides, in pertinent part: “An
2
appellant’s failure to take any step other than timely filing a
notice of appeal does not affect the validity of the appeal, but is
ground only for such action as the district court ... deems
appropriate, which may include dismissal of the appeal.” (Emphasis
added). Of course, in determining what action is appropriate, the
district court must keep in mind that “[d]ismissal is a harsh and
drastic sanction that is not appropriate in all cases, even though
it lies within the district court’s discretion”. Zer-Ilan, 221
F.3d at 699. This said, we cannot conclude the district court’s
decision was “based on an erroneous view of the law”. Id. at 698.
It had discretion to dismiss the appeal; it exercised that
discretion; and there is no indication it failed to weigh the
harshness of the sanction imposed against the gravity of Frisard’s
Rule 8006 violation.
AFFIRMED
3