UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

___________________________________ ) DOUGLASS SLOAN , ) ) Plaintiff , ) ) Bankruptcy Adversary Proceeding
v. ) No. 16

- 10027 ) CARLOS ROBERTO ALLEN ) ) Defendant

. )

___________________________________ ) ) CARLOS ROBERTO ALLEN , ) ) Appellant, ) Civil Action No. 18

- 138 (RBW) )
v. ) Civil Action No. 18

- 1442 (RBW) ) DOUGLASS S LOAN , ) ) Appellee

. ) )
MEMORANDUM OPINION On June 6, 2016, Douglas s Sloa n , a creditor of Carlos Roberto Allen, filed an adversary proceeding in the United States Bankruptcy Court f or the District of Columbia ( the “ Ban kruptcy
Court ” ) , seeking to have the Bankruptcy Court treat Allen’s debt obligation to him as nondischargable, or, alternatively, deny Allen a discharge of any of his debts sought by Allen from the Bankruptcy Court

. 1 S ee C r editor Douglas s Sloan’s Complaint Obje cting to Discharge of Debtor, Sloan v. Allen (In re Allen) , Ch. 7 Case No. 16

- 2 3 , Adv . No. 16

- 10027 (Bankr. D.D.C. June 6, 2016), ECF No. 1

. On September 21, 2017, following a trial before the

1 On Jan u ary 20, 2016, Sloan filed a Chapte r 13 voluntary bankruptcy petition in the Bankruptcy Court , which was voluntarily converted to a case under Chapte r 7. See Vol untary Petition for Indivi duals Filing for Bankrupt cy, In re Allen , Ch. 7 Case No. 16

- 23 (Bank r. D.D.C. Jan. 20, 2016), ECF No. 1 ; No tice of Conversion to Chapt er 7, In re Allen , Ch. 7 Case No. 16

- 23 (Bank r. D.D.C. Feb. 29, 2016), ECF N o
. 32

.2 Bankruptcy Court , t he Bankruptcy Court denied Allen a d ischa rge pursu a nt to 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(3) and 11 U.S .C. § 727(a)(4)(A) of any of his debt

. S ee Sl oan v. Allen ( In re Allen ) , 572 B.R. 4 4 0 (Bankr. D.D.C. 2017). Allen subsequently fi led two appeals , which were assigned
to this Court as Civ il Action No s . 18

- 138 and 18

- 144 2, re spectively. Currently pending before
the Court is Appellee ’ s Unconsented Motion to Dismiss Appeal ( “ Sloan ’ s Mot. to Dismiss ” ) , which seeks dismissal of Allen ’ s second appeal , Civ il Action No. 18

- 14 42

. See Sloan ’ s Mot. to
Dismiss at 1

. Upon careful consi deration of the parties ’ subm i ssions, 2 the Court concludes for
the fol lowing reasons that it must grant Sloan ’s mot ion to dismiss , and that the Court must also
dismiss sua sponte Allen ’ s first appea l , Civ il Action No. 18

- 138

. I. B AC KGRO U ND
On Oc tober 2 , 201 7, Allen requested that the Bankruptcy Court reconsider the denial of
the di scharge of his debt

. S ee Motion for Rec onsideration of Judgment of Sept. 21, [ 20 ] 17 , Sloan v. Allen (In re Allen) , Ch. 7 Case No. 16

- 2 3 , Adv . No. 16

- 10027 (Bankr. D .D.C.
Oct. 2, 2017), ECF No. 79 (the “ m o tion f or r e co nsideration of j udgment ”)

. T he Bankruptcy
Court denied Allen ’ s motion for reconsideration of judgment on January 3, 2018

. See Sloan v.
Allen ( In re Allen ) , Ch

. 7 Case No. 16

- 2 3, Adv. No. 16

- 10027 , 2018 WL 312238 (Bankr. D.D.C.
J an. 3, 2018). O n Jan uary 19, 2018, Alle n filed his first n o tice of a ppeal with the Bankruptcy
Court , appealing the Bankruptcy Court’s denial of the m otion for r econsideratio n of j udgmen t (the “first appeal”)

. See N otice of Appeal and Statement of Election, Sloan v. Allen (In re Allen) , Ch. 7 Case No. 16

- 2 3 , Adv. No. 1 6

- 10027 (B ankr. D.D.C. Jan. 19, 2018), ECF No. 9 4.

2 In addition to the filings alr eady identified, the Court also considered the following submissions in rea ching its decision: ( 1 ) the Appella nt ’ s Opening Brief , Civ

. Action No. 18

- 138 (D.D.C. Mar . 2 8 , 2018) , ECF No. 8 ( “ A l l e n ’ s First App. Brief ” or “ Allen ’ s first appe al brief ” ) , ( 2 ) the Appellant ’ s Opening Brief, Civ. Action No. 18

- 1442 (Jan. 14, 2019 ) , ECF No

. 5 ( “ Allen ’ s Second App. Brief ” or “ Allen ’ s second appeal brief ” ); ( 3 ) the Br ief for Appellee , Civil Action No. 18

- 1442 (Feb. 13, 2019), ECF No. 6 (“Sloan’s App. Br ief” or “Slo an’s appeal brief ” ); and ( 4 ) the Appellant’s Me morandum in Oppo sition to Appell ee’s Uncons ented Motion to Dismiss , Civil Action No. 18

- 1442 (Feb. 25, 2019), ECF No. 8 (“Allen’s Opp’n”)

.3 Allen ’ s first appeal was assigned to this Court. See Transmittal o f Notice of Appeal , Ci v. Action
No. 18

- 138 (D.D.C. Jan. 22 , 2018), ECF No. 1. In his first appeal, Allen argues that the “ Bankr uptcy Court a bused its discretion ” in denyin g his m otion for reconsideration of judgment. Allen ’ s First App. Br ief at 6

. Spec ifically,
Allen ar gues that the Bankruptcy Court erred in finding that he “ failed to rebut the pres umption
that , p rio r to trial, he did not act with due diligence to seek out and present what he dem onstrated
to be ‘new evidence [ , ] ’ ” id. at 1 , and that the Bankruptcy Co urt “should have considered ” the
additional eviden ce he provided with his m otion for r econsideration of j udgment “ in order to
prevent manifest i njustice [,] ” id. at 1 1

. O n March 29 , 2018, Allen filed a m otio n with the Bankruptcy Court t o s tay the proceedings in his b ankruptcy case and also the proceedings in a case brought against him by Sloan in the Superior Court fo r the District of C olumbia ( th e “motion to stay”)

. S ee Motion for Stay Pending Appe al , Sloan v. Allen (In re Allen) , Ch. 7 Case No. 16

- 2 3 , Adv . No. 16

- 10027 (Bankr. D.D.C. Mar. 29, 2018), E CF No. 107

. The Bankruptcy C ourt denied Allen’s motion to
stay on April 20, 20 18, cit ing not only All en ’s failure to tim ely file hi s notice of appeal , b ut also
Alle n’s failure to timely file a m o tion to exte nd the time to file his appeal. S ee Sloan v. Allen (In re Allen) , Ch. 7 Case No. 16

- 2 3 , Adv . No. 16

- 10027 , 2018 WL 1940142, at *1, *4 (Bankr. D.D.C. Apr. 20, 2018). Specifically, the Bankruptcy C ourt opi ne d that Allen’s ap peal was

un likely t o be successful beca use “ [t]h [is] [ ] Court would be re qui red to raise the lack of a timely appeal as a jurisdictional defect re quiring dismissal o f the appeal.” Id. at *1

. O n April 27, 2018, Allen filed a m otion with t he Bankruptcy Cou rt for re co nsiderat ion of
its denial of Allen’s m otion to stay (the “ m otio n for r econsideration of stay ”) , see Motion for
Reconsidera tion of Order Denying De fendant’s Mo tion fo r Stay Pending Appeal , Sloan v. Allen4 (In re Allen) , Ch. 7 Case No. 16

- 2 3 , Adv. No. 16

- 1 0027 (Ban kr . D.D.C

. Apr. 27 , 2018 ), ECF
No. 119 , which the Bankruptcy Court denied on May 1, 2018 , see Sloan v. Allen (In re Allen) , Ch. 7 Case No. 16

- 23, Adv. No. 16

- 1 0027 , 2018 WL 2093327, at *2 (Bankr. D.D.C. May 1, 2018). The Ba nkruptc y Cou rt again opined that “ th [is] [ ] Court will be required to dismiss the

appe al for la ck of jur isdiction be cause Allen failed to file a timely no tice of appeal[ ] and failed to
file a time ly motion to enlarg e the time to appeal.” Id. at *1.
O n May 14, 201 8, Al len filed his second n otice of a ppeal wit h the Bankruptcy Court , this
tim e appeali ng the Ba nkruptcy Cou rt’s denial of his m otion for r econsideration of stay (the “second ap peal”)

. See Notice of A ppea l and Statement of Election, Sloan v. Allen (In re Allen) , Ch. 7 Case No. 16

- 23 , Adv. No. 16

- 10027 (Ba nkr. D.D.C. May 14, 2018), ECF No. 125. Allen ’ s second appeal was also assigned to this Cour t as related to his first appeal

. See Transmittal of
Notice of Appeal , Ci v. Action No. 18

- 1 442 (D.D.C. J une 5 , 2018), ECF No. 1. In sup port of his

sec ond appea l, Allen filed a brief that is identical to his first appeal brief

. C o mpa re Allen ’ s Second App. Brief , with Allen ’ s First App. Brief

. Thereafter, Sloan filed his motion to dismiss
Allen’s second a p peal

. S e e generally Sloan’s Mot. to Dism iss

. Allen ’ s first appeal regarding his

m otion for r econsideration of j udgment ult imat ely controls the resolution of his attempt to obtain appellate review and is therefore the primary focus of this M emorandum Opi nion

. II. S TAND ARD OF REVIEW
28 U.S.C . § 158 governs appeals from the bankruptcy courts to federal district cou rts.
Sectio n 158(a) provides that dist rict court s hav e j urisdiction over appeals (1) fr om fina l judgments, ord ers, and decr ee s; (2) from interlo cut or y or ders and decrees issued unde r section 1121(d) of title 11 increasing or reducing the time periods refe rred t o in s e ction 1 1 21 of such title; and (3) wi th le ave of the court, from other inter locutor y orders and dec rees[.]5 28 U .S .C. § 158(a) (2018)

. Se ctio n 158 also provides that “[a ]n appeal under subsection[] (a) . . .
of this section shall be taken in t he sam e mann e r as ap p eals in civil proc eedings ge neral ly are taken to the courts of appe als fro m the district c ourts.” Id. § 158(c)(2).
Neither 28 U.S.C. § 158 nor Federal Rule of B ankruptcy Procedure 8013, which governs motions filed in bankruptcy appeals, address es motions to dismiss a bankruptcy appe al

. S ee
28 U.S.C. § 158; Fed. R. Bankr . P. 8013

. However, t he Court , pursuant to 2 8 U.S.C. § 158( c)(2),

acts as an appellate court when reviewing decisions made by the bankruptcy court , s ee In re St.
Charles Pres. Inv ’ rs, Ltd. , 112 B. R. 469, 471 n.2 (D.D.C. 1990) ; see al so Sollins v. 1391 Conn.
Ave. Assocs. , Civ. N o. 95

- 0657, 1996 WL 61773, at *2 n. 5 (D.D.C . Feb. 6, 1996), aff’d sub

n om. Ross v. 1301 Conn

. Ave. Assocs. , 99 F.3d 444 (D.C. Cir. 1996) , and therefore must follow
th e Distri ct of Columbia Circuit’s practice with res pect to motions to dismiss appeals.

M otions to dismiss appeals a re constr ue d by t he Circui t as motions for su mmary
affirmance

. S ee , e.g. , Solomon v. Sup

. C t. of Fla. , No. 03

- 7002, 2003 WL 1873 939, at *1 ( D.C.
Ci r. Apr. 2, 2003)

. “ A party seeking summary dispositio n bea rs the heavy burden of establishin g
that the merits of his c ase ar e so c lea r that expedited ac tion is justified .” Taxpayers Watchdog, Inc. v. Stanley , 819 F.2d 294, 297 (D.C. Cir. 1987). T hus, t o summarily affirm the bankruptcy
court’s order , the Co urt “ mus t conclude that no benefit will be gained from further br iefing and

a rgu ment of the issues presented.” Id. at 298

. Further, in reviewing a motion to dismiss an appeal or a motion for s ummary affirmance, the C ourt “view [s] the record and the infe rence s t o be
drawn therefrom ‘in the li ght most favorable to [the non - m ovin g par ty ].’” Id. (quotin g United
States v . Diebold , 369 U.S. 654, 655 (1962)).6 III. ANALYSIS Although the parties’ submissio n s reg ar ding Sloan’s moti on to dismiss focus primarily on
Alle n’s s eco nd appeal regardin g his m otio n for r econsideration of s ta y , th e parties ’ subm issions
also a ddress Allen’s first appeal regarding his m otion for r econsideration of j udgment

. The
Court wi l l the re fore address each of Allen’s appeal s i n turn

. A. Allen ’ s First Appeal
Sl oan ar gues tha t because Allen failed to time ly fil e the notice of appeal of his m o ti on for

r econsideration of j udgment , this Court lacks jurisdi ction to consider the first appeal

. See
Sl oan’s Mot. to Dismiss at 3. All en concedes that he failed to timely file notice of his first

a

p p e a l , but argues that h is first notice of appeal “is no t that which is at issue in th e current [m]o tion to [d] ismiss , ” Alle n’s Opp’n at 2 , and that dism i ssal “on t h e gr oun ds of procedural
technicalities” is contrary to “a strong presumpt io n in favor of adjudication on the merit s [ , ] ” i d.
at 2

– 3.
Fed eral R ule of B ankr uptcy P rocedure 8002(a) provide s that “ a not ice of appeal must be
filed with the bankruptcy clerk within [ fourt een ] days after entry of the judgment, order, or
decree being a pp ealed .” Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8002(a). Howev e r, a b ankruptcy c ourt may exten d the time to file a notice of appeal upo n a party ’ s motion. See F ed . R. Bankr. P. 8002(d)(1).
A bankr uptcy co ur t may extend the fourteen

- day deadline if the appellant ’ s motion is filed “within the time prescribed by this r ule; or within [twenty

- one] day s after that time, if the party shows excusable neglect.” Id. An ap peal within the prescribed t i me set fort h i n Rule 8002 is a “mandatory and jurisdictional” requirement. O we ns v. Grigsby , 575 B.R. 1, 3 (D.D.C. 2017) ( cit i ng Browder v. Dir., Dep’t of Co rr . of Ill

. , 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) ) ; see also Murphy v. U.S. Dep ’ t of Educ. , 547 B.R. 875, 880 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. 2016 ) (“The time to f ile a bankruptcy7 appeal is jurisdictional thus depriving reviewin g courts of jurisdictio n over an untimely appeal.”). Here, Allen’s initial notice of appea l was untimely , as his notice of appeal was not filed
with i n fourteen days o f Ja n uar y 3, 2018 , the date that the Bankruptcy Court issued its order deny in g Allen’s m otion for r econsidera tion of j u dgment

. In fact , Alle n file d his notice of appeal

on January 19, 2019 , sixteen days after the entry of the Bankr uptcy C ourt ’ s order , i nstead of filing a motion for an extension to no tice his appeal within the thirty

- five days afforde d to him to
do so pursuant to Rule 8002 . Be ca use filing a tim ely notice of appeal is “mandatory and jurisdictional,” Owens , 575 B.R

. a t 3 , t h is Court lack s jur isd ic tion to rev iew the B ankruptcy
C ourt’s denial of Allen ’ s m otion for r econsideration of j udgment that All en c ha llenge s in his fi rst

appea l

. Allen’s counterarg uments are unavailing

. Although Allen contends there is a “strong

pr esumpt i on in favor of adj udi cation on the merits,” the Court m ay no t r ea ch the merits if it lacks jurisdiction

. Riley v. Capitol Par k II Condo. Ass’n , Civ

. No. 18

- 0 60 5 (PLF), 2019 WL 1432596,
at * 3 (D.D.C. Mar. 29, 2019) (“[F ]ailure to timely file the no tice of appea l is fatal becaus e the
ti me ly filing of a notice of appeal from decisions of the Bankruptcy Co urt is a jurisdictio n al predicate fo r appellate review.”). M oreover, Allen failed to timely file a motion for an extens ion
with in the thirty

- five da ys afforded t o him to do so p ursua nt to Rule 8002, and Rule 8002 “‘does not allow a party to claim excus ab le neglect after the t ime period has expired.’” In re Budd , 5 89 B.R. 1, 4

– 5 (D.D.C. 2018) ( citing In re Allen , Ch. 7 Case No. 16

- 2 3 , Adv . No. 16

- 10027 , 2018 WL 19401 42 at *3 (Bankr. D. D.C. April 20, 201 8) ) ( declining to consider whether appellant ’ s untimely appeal was excuse d where “ due to court e r ror, [ the appell an t] did not
receive notice that the Bankruptcy Court had denied her motion for reconsidera tion ,” but the8 appell ant failed to f ile a mo tion for an e xtension of time to file a notice of appeal )

. Therefore,
Allen may not claim excusable neg lec t due to his f ai lure to timely file a motion for an extension within the applicable time period. Although Slo an has not moved to dismiss Alle n’s first appeal, “federal cou rts, being courts of limited juris dicti on, mu st assure themselves of jurisdiction ove r any controve rs y they
h ear, regardless of the parties’ failure to as sert any jurisdictional question.” Noel Canning v.
Nat’l Labor Relation s Bd. , 705 F.3d 490, 496 (D .C. Cir. 2013). Accordingly, “subjec t mat ter ju risdiction may be raised at any time, ev en by the cour t sua spon te .” Jerez v. Republic of Cuba , 777 F. Supp. 2d 6, 15 (D.D.C. 2011) (citations o mitt ed); see also Eva ns v. Suter, No. 09

– 5242, 2010 WL 1632902, at *1 (D.C. Cir. Apr. 2, 2010) ( h o l d i n g t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t p r o p e r l y
dismissed c omplaint sua spon te where “it [was] evident that the court lack [ed] subject

- matter jurisdiction”) ; Ins. Corp . of Ireland v. Compa gnie des Bauxites de Guinee , 456 U.S. 694, 702 (1982) (“ Similarly, a court, including an appellate court, will raise lack of su bject

- matter juri sd iction on its own motion.”)

. The Cour t t her efore concludes that because it lacks jurisdi ction over Allen ’ s fi rst appeal, this appeal mus t be dismissed sua sponte

. B. A llen ’ s Second App eal
Sloan moves to dismiss Allen’s secon d appeal , which relates to Allen ’ s m oti on for

r econsideration of s tay , based on Allen ’s failure to timely file his first no tice of ap peal. See
Sloan’s Mot. to Dismiss at 3

– 6

. Allen responds that his first notice of ap peal “is not that which
is at issue in the current [m] o t ion to [d] ism iss, ” and th at his timel y second of notice of appeal
def e ats Sloan’s m otion to d ismiss. See Allen’s Opp’n at 2

. However, Sloan asserts that Allen’s second appeal brief “was identical to [the] brief pre viously filed in [ Allen ’s first appeal , ] ”9 Sloan’s Mot . to Dismiss at 6 , and failed to present any “ different argument or issue ” beyond
what was al ready addressed in Al len ’ s first appeal br ief , id

. at 2. 3
The Court mus t dis miss Alle n’s second appeal because it improper ly attempts to
circumven t Rule 8002(a)’ s ti meliness requirement by addressing the merits of his untimely filed
first appeal , as oppo sed to addressing t he merits of the second appeal. Allen is correct that his
second no tice of appeal was timely filed , si nce h e filed his second no ti c e of appeal on
M ay 14, 2018 , within f o urte en days after the B ankruptcy Court issued its o rder denying All en ’s

m otio n for r econ sideration of s tay on May 1, 2018. However, regardless of whether Allen timely
file d his second notice of appeal , this appeal must be dismiss ed b ecause Allen fails to address the
merits of the Bankruptcy Court ’ s order that he is appea ling. Allen’s second appeal neith er

c hallenge s nor purports to challenge his second mo tion for reconsider ation , which concerns the Bankruptcy Court ’ s denial of a stay . I nstead, Allen challeng es the exact same issue that h e challenged in his first app e al

— the Bankrupt cy Court’ s initial denial of his firs t mot ion for
reconsideration , which d irectly concerns the discharge of his d ebts. In fact, i n supp ort of his

seco nd a ppeal, Allen submitted a brief that is identical to his first appeal brief

. T h is Court lacks jurisdiction to c onsider Allen’s arguments in support of his se c ond appeal, w hich improperly “attempt[s] to challenge” the Bankruptcy Court’s or igina l order

. S ee
O wens v. Grisby , 575 B.R. 1, 2 , 4 (D.D.C. 2017) (dism issing the appellant’s t imely second appeal “to the exten t it challenge[d] the b ankruptcy court’s original dismi ssal o rder ,” where the original dismissal order was based on the appella nt’ s unt imely i niti al notice of appe al )

. This

3 Sloan also a rgues that A llen’s second a ppeal should b e dismissed bec ause he failed to timely file his second appe al brief

. See Sloan’s Mot. to Dis miss at 6. Allen does not d ispute that his second appeal brief was not filed timely , as Allen file d t his brief on January 14, 2019, nearly six mo nths late r than directed to do so b y the Court. See Alle n’s Opp’n at 2 ; s ee generally Allen’ s Second A pp
. B ri ef. However, in light of the Court ’s determinati on that Allen’s
sec ond appeal must be dismissed on the grounds that it inappropriately addresses the merits of hi s untimely file d fi rst appeal , the Court need not address Sloan’s ar guments r egarding the time liness of Allen’s second appeal br i ef.10 Court cannot condone Al len ’s attempt to circumv ent the underlying timeliness defic iency of his
initial appeal by filing a subsequent mo tion f or r econsideration that affords him the opportunity to timely file h is appeal

. S ee Yel verton v. Homes at Potomac Greens Assocs. , Ltd. P ’ s hip , No. 11

- cv - 314 (RLW ) , 2011 WL 1211594, at * 2 (D.D.C. M ar. 31, 2011 ), aff ’ d sub nom. In re
Yelverton , 511 F. App ’ x 2 (D.C. Cir. 2013) ( dismiss ing a b ankr uptcy appeal wh er e the appell ant
failed to t imel y file its init i al notice of appeal , a nd where the appellant’s subseque nt m otion for reconsideration, se eking reconsideration of orders denying prior motions fo r r econs ideration , did

“ not toll or o therw ise exten d the time to perfect an a ppeal ”).
Even “ view [ ing ] the record a nd the inferences to b e drawn the refrom ‘in the light mos t favorable to [the non - moving part y ] , ’ ” Taxpayers Watchdo g, Inc. , 819 F.2d at 29 8 (quo t ing
Die bold , 369 U.S. at 655 ) , the C ourt concludes th at it lacks jurisdict ion to consider the merits of
Allen ’ s appellate brief , and t herefore “ no benefit will be gaine d from further briefing and

argumen t o f the issues presented , ” i d. at 298. Although tim e ly, Allen’s second ap peal seeks th e
Court’s unauthor ized revie w of the Ba nkruptcy Court’ s or iginal order

. Accordingly, the Court

mu st grant Sl oan’s m otion to d ismiss Allen’s second appeal regarding his m o tio n for

r econsideration of s tay

. 4

4 Sloan also asks the Court to deter mine if Allen’s filing constitutes a frivo lous appeal pursuant to Federal Ru le of Bankr uptcy Procedure 802 0, and if sanctions a re therefore warranted. See Sloan’s Mot. at 6

– 7. Whi le this C ourt finds Allen’s appeals to be u lti matel y unsuccessful, the complexity of this opin ion reveals that Allen ’ s “ arg uments are not ‘so utterly lacking in m erit as to rend er t his appeal sanctionab le as frivolous.’” Advantage Healthplan, Inc. v. Pott er , 391 B.R . 521, 555 n.19 (D.D.C. 2008) (quo tin g In re Solomat Part ners , L.P. , 231 B.R. 1 49, 157 (2d Cir. BAP 1999), aff’d sub nom. Greater Se. Cmty. Hosp. Found ., Inc. v. Pott er , 586 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2009 ) ) ; see also In re Gavin , 319 B.R. 27 , 34 (B.A.P. 1st Cir. 2004) ( “ While there is no formula for determining whether an appeal is frivolous , . . . a n appellate court may consider whether the appellant ’ s argument addresses the issu es on appeal, fails t o cite any authority, cites inapplicable a uthority, ma kes unsubstantiated factual asserti ons, asserts bare legal conclusions, or misrepresents t he record. ” ). Accordingly, the Court, in an exerci se of its discretio n, finds that All en’s appeal is no t s o fri volous as to wa rrant the imposition of san ctions.11 IV. C ONCL USION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes that it mu st s ua spon te dismiss Allen’s
first appe al regarding his m otion for r e considerati on of j udgment . The Court further concludes
that it must grant Sl oan ’s motion to dismiss Allen’s second appeal regarding his m otio n for

r econsideration of s tay

. SO ORDERED th is 26th day o f Novem ber , 2019. 5

REGGIE B. WALTON Un ited Sta tes District Judge

5 Th e Court will contemporaneously iss u e an Order consistent with this M emorandum Op inion.