[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
DECEMBER 1, 2009
No. 08-15494
THOMAS K. KAHN
________________________
CLERK
D. C. Docket Nos. 07-00237 CV-J-33,
05-03817-3F1
IN RE:
WINN-DIXIE STORES, INC.,
Debtor.
________________________________________________
FLORIDA TAX COLLECTORS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
WINN-DIXIE STORES, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
No. 08-15495
________________________
D. C. Docket Nos. 07-00240 CV-J-33,
05-03817-3F1
IN RE:
WINN-DIXIE STORES, INC.,
Debtor.
________________________________________________
FLORIDA TAX COLLECTORS,
Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross-Appellee,
versus
WINN-DIXIE STORES, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee-Cross-Appellant.
________________________
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
_________________________
(December 1, 2009)
Before MARCUS, FAY and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
The appeals in Nos. 08-15494 and 08-15495 were orally argued together on
Wednesday, November 18, 2009. We sua sponte consolidate the two appeals.
With respect to appeal No. 08-15494, the only issue in this appeal is whether
the bankruptcy court and district court erred in fixing the interest rate for the tax
2
payments to appellants at seven percent.1 We conclude that there was no error.
See United States v. Southern States Motor Inns, Inc., 709 F.2d 647 (11th Cir.
1983).
With respect to appeal No. 08-15495, appellants’ arguments on appeal fail to
establish any error in the judgment of the court below. Thus, the judgment of the
court below rejecting the several arguments presented to the courts below is
affirmed (including the following arguments which apparently were raised in the
court below: the Tenth Amendment argument, the Eleventh Amendment argument,
the argument based on the Tax Injunction Act, and the abstention argument). In
addition, appellants’ sparse brief on appeal fails to establish error with respect to
the application of 11 U.S.C. §505 in the court below.
With respect to Winn-Dixie’s cross-appeal in No. 08-15495, Winn-Dixie has
failed to persuade us that the district court erred in concluding that the appropriate
statute of limitations was 60 days. See Ward v. Brown, 894 So.2d 811 (Fla. 2004).
AFFIRMED.
1
We construe appellants’ representations to the district court as a concession that
this was the only issue. Accordingly, we disregard appellants’ other arguments in its brief in this
appeal.
3