Case ID: f-appx_67/html/0814-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

In re Jerry WILLIAMS, Debtor. CHRYSLER FINANCIAL; SONIC CHRYSLER-PLYMOUTH-JEEP, LLC, d/b/a Lake Norman Chrysler Plymouth Jeep, Creditors-Appellants, v. W. Joseph BURNS, Trustee, Trustee-Appellee.
    No. 03-1002.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted June 19, 2003.
    Decided June 24, 2003.
    Franklin Drake, Smith, Debnam, Narron, Wyche, Story & Myers, L.L.P., Raleigh, North Carolina; Kiah T. Ford, IV, Parker, Poe, Adams & Bernstein, L.L.P., Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellants. William J. Burns, Burns & Arneke, L.L.P., Winston Salem, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges.
    
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    
      
       The opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d).
    
   PER CURIAM.

Chrysler Financial and Sonic Chrysler-Plymouth-Jeep, LLC, doing business as Lake Norman Chrysler Plymouth Jeep, (“Appellants”) appeal from the district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s order denying their motion for relief from the automatic stay in bankruptcy after finding that Appellants had not perfected their lien in the Debtor’s vehicle within twenty days and therefore the lien was avoidable under 11 U.S.C. § 547(c)(3)(B) (2000). This court reviews the judgment of a district court sitting in review of a bankruptcy court de novo, applying the same standards of review that were applied in the district court. See Three Sisters Partners, L.L.C. v. Harden (In re Shangra-La, Inc.), 167 F.3d 843, 847 (4th Cir.1999). Our review of the record and the bankruptcy court’s opinion discloses no reversible error. Accordingly, we grant Appellee’s motion to amend his brief and affirm on the reasoning of the bankruptcy court. Chrysler Financial v. Burns, CA-01-944-1 (M.D.N.C. Nov. 20, 2002). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.