Case ID: f-appx_352/html/0775-01.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: Beverly BYRD; Ralph T. Byrd, Debtors. Beverly Byrd; Ralph T. Byrd, Plaintiffs—Appellants, v. James M. Hoffman, Defendant—Appellee, and Gregory P. Johnson, Trustee. In re: Beverly Byrd; Ralph T. Byrd, Debtors. Beverly Byrd; Ralph T. Byrd, Plaintiffs—Appellants, v. James M. Hoffman, Defendant—Appellee, and Gregory P. Johnson, Trustee.
    Nos. 08-1988, 08-1989.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Nov. 17, 2009.
    Decided: Nov. 19, 2009.
    Ralph T. Byrd, Laytonsville, Maryland, for Appellants. Stephen A. Metz, John D. Sadler, Shulman, Rogers, Gandal, Pordy & Ecker, P.A., Potomac, Maryland; James M. Hoffman, Offit Kurman, Bethesda, Maryland, for Appellees.
    Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Beverly and Ralph Byrd appeal from the district court’s orders affirming the bank-l'uptcy court’s orders finding them in contempt and imposing sanctions against them for (1) failing to timely to produce documents and information as ordered by the bankruptcy court and (2) willfully violating the automatic stay and the Barton Doctrine, and the injunction order issued by the bankruptcy court. We have reviewed the record on appeal and the briefs filed by the parties and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Byrd v. Hoffman, Nos. 8:07-cv-02960-AW; 8:07-cv-03049-AW (D. Md., July 31, 2008; filed July 30; entered July 31, 2008). 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. 
      
      
        Barton v. Barbour, 104 U.S. 126, 127, 26 L.Ed. 672 (1881) (requiring that, "before suit is brought against a receiver, leave of the court by which he was appointed must be obtained").