Filed: July 3, 1997

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-2618

(CA-96-2040-Y, BK-95-57331, AP-95-5647)

James Arlin Ramsey,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

David F. Bernstein,

Defendant - Appellant.

ORDER

The Court amends its opinion filed May 27, 1997, as follows:

On the cover sheet, section 3, line 4 -- the district court's

number is corrected to read CA-96- 2040-Y.

For the Court - By Direction

/s/ Patricia S. Connor

Clerk
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

In Re: DAVID F. BERNSTEIN,

Debtor.

JAMES ARLIN RAMSEY,

No. 96-2618

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

DAVID F. BERNSTEIN,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.

Joseph H. Young, Senior District Judge.

(CA-96-2040-Y, BK-95-57331, AP-95-5647)

Submitted: May 6, 1997

Decided: May 27, 1997

Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and

PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

S. Rod Acchiardo, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Daniel Joseph

Mellin, HILLMAN, BROWN & DARROW, P.A., Annapolis, Maryland, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

David Bernstein appeals from the district court's order affirming

the bankruptcy court's decision that a Virginia judgment against

Bernstein was nondischargeable. Bernstein asserts that he should not

be collaterally estopped from relitigating in the bankruptcy court the

issues associated with the Virginia judgment because the record relied

upon by the bankruptcy court was insufficient to permit a conclusion

that the issues were actually litigated in the Virginia proceeding. After

reviewing the record and the district court's opinion, we find no

reversible error.

Specifically, Bernstein contends that the full transcript of the state

court proceeding must be reviewed before the bankruptcy court can

determine that an issue was actually and necessarily litigated in the

earlier suit. Bernstein's claim is without merit because bankruptcy

courts are not required to take extrinsic evidence before a prior civil

judgment is assigned a preclusive effect.1 A debtor is estopped from

relitigating an issue in a discharge proceeding if the examination of

the record of the earlier proceeding satisfies the bankruptcy court that

the issue was raised and litigated and that the issue was necessary to

the verdict in the prior case.2 In this case, the bankruptcy court examined the record and concluded that the pertinent issues were litigated

and necessary for the jury's verdict in the Virginia proceeding.

Accordingly, the bankruptcy court did not err in finding Bernstein

collaterally estopped from relitigating the Virginia judgment in the

bankruptcy court.

We therefore affirm the order of the district court. We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are ade-

_________________________________________________________________

1 Combs v. Richardson, 838 F.2d 112, 114 (4th Cir. 1988).

2 Id.

 2
quately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

 3