USCA1 Opinion
December 21, 1994
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 94-1041
CECELIA PALMISANO FRUSHER,
Appellant,
v.
BASKIN-ROBBINS ICE CREAM COMPANY, ET AL.,
Appellees.
____________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
[Hon. Ernest C. Torres, U.S. District Judge] ___________________
____________________
Before
Cyr, Circuit Judge, _____________
Bownes, Senior Circuit Judge, and ____________________
Stahl, Circuit Judge. _____________
____________________
Cecelia P. Frusher on brief pro se. __________________
Mark W. Freel and Edwards & Angell on brief for appellee. _____________ ________________
____________________
____________________
Per Curiam. Cecelia P. Frusher appeals a judgment __________
of the district court affirming a decision by the bankruptcy
court in an adversary proceeding initiated by appellant
against her former franchisor. The crux of appellant's
argument is that the bankruptcy court erred in resolving
against her the fact-dominated liability issues underlying
her claims of misrepresentation, fraud and deceit. Having
carefully reviewed the briefs and relevant portions of the
record in this six-day bench trial, we find no clear error in
the bankruptcy court's factual findings and no suggestion of
legal error. See In re G.S.F. Corp., 938 F.2d 1467 (1st Cir. ___ __________________
1991).1 Accordingly, we need not reach the assignments of
error relating to damages. We see no support for appellant's
further contention that the decisions below were influenced
by gender bias.
Affirmed. ________
____________________
1. The parties' briefs join issue on the applicable standard
of review in this court following the district court's review
under Bankruptcy Rule 8013. We adhere to the rule that this
court "independently reviews the bankruptcy court's decision,
applying the clearly erroneous standard to findings of fact
and de novo review to conclusions of law." GSF Corp., 938 _________
F.2d at 1474. Any errors committed by the district court in
findings of fact during its review are rendered harmless by
our independent review, so we do not address those arguments
in appellant's brief.