Case ID: f3d_421/html/1153-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

United States Trustee, William T. NEARY, Appellant, v. KERAVISION, INC., Debtor-Appellee.
    No. 03-16067.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted Feb. 9, 2005.
    Filed Sept. 7, 2005.
    Eric D. Miller (briefed and argued), and Robert M. Loeb (briefed), United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for the appellant.
    Peter M. Gilhuly (briefed and argued), Kathryn M. Davis (briefed), and Eric D. Brown (briefed), Latham & Watkins LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for the appellee.
    Before WALLACE, RAWLINSON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
   JUDGMENT ORDER

ORDER

We affirm the judgment entered by the district court for the reasons stated in its opinion approving the appointment of the law firm. See In re Keravision, Inc., 273 B.R. 614 (N.D.Cal.2002). The trustee did not raise the rules of professional responsibility in challenging the law firm’s appointment before the district court. See id. at 618. Therefore, we decline to address that issue on appeal. See United States v. Alisal Water Corp., 370 F.3d 915, 923 (9th Cir.2004).

AFFIRMED. 
      
      . We have jurisdiction over this appeal because the order awarding attorneys’ fees is a final determination of the payment to be distributed to Latham from the estate. See Yermakov v. Fitzsimmons (In re Yermakov), 718 F.2d 1465, 1469 (9th Cir.1983).