Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-88-01944/USCOURTS-ca10-88-01944-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Cuesta Energy Corporation
Appellee
Hill Resources, Inc.
Appellant

Document Text:

.. 

FI LED 

Uoited Scates Court of Appeals 

'fenth Circuit 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

S£P 111989 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

HILL RESOURCES, INC., 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

CUESTA ENERGY CORPORATION, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 88-1944 

(D.C. No. CIV-86-2531-T) 

(W.D. Oklahoma) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Submitted on the Briefs: 

Before MOORE, ANDERSON, and BRORBY, 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. The cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

*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: 88-1944 Document: 01019973482 Date Filed: 09/11/1989 Page: 1 
Our review of the case leads us to the conclusion the 

district court did not err in affirming the judgment of the 

bankruptcy court. We affirm for the reasons set forth in the 

order of the district court entered on May 12, 1988. We have also 

considered whether the bankruptcy court erred in shortening the 

notice of the confirmation hearing. We have examined the record 

and have failed to find an objection filed in the bankruptcy court 

by the appellant that would serve to preserve this issue for 

appeal. Nonetheless, we would not reverse on this issue even if 

it were preserved. Given the extensive pre-hearing negotiations 

between the trustee and interested parties and the time between 

the submission of the original plan and the date of confirmation, 

we cannot say the bankruptcy court abused its discretion. Fed. R. 

Bankr. P. 9006(c). 

AFFIRMED. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court 

John P. Moore 

Circuit Judge 

-2-

Appellate Case: 88-1944 Document: 01019973482 Date Filed: 09/11/1989 Page: 2