Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-03209/USCOURTS-ca10-91-03209-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 422
Nature of Suit: Bankruptcy Appeals Rule 28 USC 158
Cause of Action: 

---

•' 

FI LED 

Unitc:d States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT UG 11991 

In re: DEBRA ANN SIPKA, 

Debtor, 

DEBRA ANN SIPKA, 

Appellant, 

v. 

DAVID LEE SIPKA, 

Appellee. 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

) Clerk 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) No. 91-3209 

) (D.C. No. 91-1233) 

) ( D. Kan.) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN, SEYMOUR, and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The case is therefore ordered 

This appeal is taken from an order of the United States 

District Court for the District of Kansas denying appellant's 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 91-3209 Document: 010110130173 Date Filed: 08/01/1991 Page: 1 
motion for stay pending appeal to district court of an order of 

the bankruptcy court which lifted the bankruptcy court's automatic 

stay order. A panel of this court earlier denied appellant's 

motion for stay addressed to this court and directed appellant to 

show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for want of 

appellate jurisdiction. No response has been filed. 

We have jurisdiction only over final decisions, judgments, 

orders, and decrees of district courts when those decisions are 

heard in the district court's appellate capacity under 28 u.s.c. 

§ 157(a). In this case, the district court's order denying 

appellant's motion for stay is interlocutory, not final. 

Consequently, we are without jurisdiction over the appeal. In re 

Atencio, 913 F.2d 814, 816 (10th Cir. 1990). 

Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

2 

Appellate Case: 91-3209 Document: 010110130173 Date Filed: 08/01/1991 Page: 2