Case ID: br_581/html/0316-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

IN RE: DATA SYSTEMS, INC., Debtor. William F. Holdner, Appellant, v. Amy E. Mitchell, Appellee.
    No. 17-35319
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted January 16, 2018 
    
    Filed January 23, 2018
    William F. Holdner, Pro Se
    Justin Daniel Leonard, Esquire, Attorney, Leonard Law Group LLC, Portland, OR, Timothy Andrew Solomon, Esquire, Attorney, Sussman Shank LLP, Portland, OR, for Appellee
    Before: REINHARDT, TROTT, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

William F. Holdner appeals pro se from the district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s order confirming debt- or Data Systems, Inc.’s (“DSI”) chapter 11 plan of reorganization. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo a district court’s decision on appeal from a bankruptcy court, and review a bankruptcy court’s decision independently, without deference to the district court’s decision. In re JTS Corp., 617 F.3d 1102, 1109 (9th Cir. 2010). We review de novo a bankruptcy court’s conclusions of law and for clear error its findings of fact. Id. We affirm.

The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by confirming DSI’s plan of reorganization because Holdner failed to establish any basis to deny confirmation under 11 U.S.C. § 1129. See Marshall v. Marshall (In re Marshall), 721 F.3d 1032, 1045 (9th Cir. 2013) (standard of review).

To the extent Holdner contends that the bankruptcy court erred by approving the second amended disclosure statement, we reject such contention as without merit.

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.