Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-86-01931/USCOURTS-ca10-86-01931-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
For The County of Arapahoe, State of Colorado
Not Party
Ronald F. Reinisch
Appellant
Shelly G. Reinisch
Appellant
Sanitation District
Not Party
Solarado, Inc.
Not Party
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

FILED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

UniU!d Stat.ea Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

FEB 2 51988 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

SOLARADO, INC., a Colorado 

corporation, 

Defendant, 

RONALD F. REINISCH; 

SHELLY G. REINISCH, 

Defendants-Appellants, 

and 

THE PUBLIC TRUSTEE FOR THE 

COUNTY OF ARAPAHOE, STATE OF 

COLORADO; CASTLEWOOD SANITATION 

DISTRICT; COLLECTION BUREAU, INC., 

a Colorado corporation, 

Defendants. 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

> Clerk 

} 

} 

} 

} No. 86-1931 

} (D.C. No. 83-C-1240} 

} (D. Colo.} 

} 

} 

} 

} / 

} 

} 

} 

} 

} 

} 

} 

} 

} 

} 

} 

} 

} 

} 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT 

Before MOORE and TACHA, Circuit Judges, and BRIMMER, Chief Judge.* 

*Honorable Clarence A. 

District Court for 

designation. 

Brimmer, Chief Judge, United States 

the District of Wyoming, sitting by 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

Appellate Case: 86-1931 Document: 010110028276 Date Filed: 02/25/1988 Page: 1 
assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.8. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The cause is therefore ordered 

This is an appeal from a judgment of foreclosure entered by 

the district court in favor of the United States with respect to 

certain real property owned by defendants Ronald and Shelly 

Reinisch. Defendants had pledged the property as security for a 

loan made to Solarado, Inc. under the Small Business Energy Loan 

Act (SBELA), 15 U.S.C. § 636(1). 

The sole issue raised on appeal is whether the Small Business 

Administration (SBA) violated the SBELA and its own regulations by 

requiring the Reinisch property as collateral. We hold that it 

did not. While the SBELA does express Congress' intent to have 

SBA evaluate aspiring energy ventures by giving more weight to 

their technical and commercial merit than to their 

collateralization, see 15 u.s.c. § 636(1)(7), nothing in the SBELA 

prohibits SBA from requiring collateral as one of the terms in any 

loan it ultimately makes to an enterprise that has satisfied the 

criteria in§ 636(1)(7). 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

District of Colorado is AFFIRMED. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

2 

Appellate Case: 86-1931 Document: 010110028276 Date Filed: 02/25/1988 Page: 2