UNITED STATES CO URT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

In re: MARK S. MILLER; JAMILEH MILLER, Debtors.

-------------------- ---------- MARK S. MILLER; JAMILEH MILLER, Appellants,

v. DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY; SALLY J. ZEMAN, Trustee, Appellees. No. 13-1410 (D.C. No. 1:12-CV-03279-PAB) (D. Colo.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before HARTZ , BALDOCK , and BACHARACH , Circuit Judges.

* After examining the briefs and appella te record, this pa nel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not mate rially assist the de termination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctr ines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cite d, however, for its persuasi ve value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### August 29, 2014
Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court- 2 - The parties are familiar with the underlyi ng facts of this case, which we need not detail here. In our pr ior opinion in this case, Miller v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. (In re Miller) , 666 F.3d 1255 (10th Cir. 2012), we clarified the nature of the proof required for Deutsche Bank to establish its standi ng as a “party in interest” entitled to seek relief from the automatic st ay in the debtors’ bankruptcy. We then remanded for further proceed ings on that issue. Id. at 1265. On remand, the bankruptcy court held an evidentiary h earing and received additional evidence and testimony concerning De utsche Bank’s standing as a cred itor of the debtors’ estate. It concluded that Deutsche Bank had demonstrated its sta nding and its entitlement to relief from stay. The debtors appealed to the district cour t, which affirmed the order and judgment of the bankruptcy court. The debtors then filed a post-judgment motion in the distri ct court, seeking relief pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b), 59, and 60(b). The dist rict court construed their motion as a motion for rehearing unde r Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8015. Before the district court could rule on th eir motion, they appealed to this court from the district court’s judgment affirming the bankruptcy c ourt’s order. We held the appeal in abeyance until the district court ruled on th e post-judgment motion. When it denied the motion, this ripened the prior-filed notice of appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 6(b)(2)(A)(i). The debtors did not file a new or amended notice of appeal from the district court’s ruling on their post-judgment motion.- 3 - On appeal, the debtors raise eight issu es: (1) whether the bankruptcy court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hol d an evidentiary hearing after remand; (2) whether the bankruptcy court abused its authority by awarding Deutsche Bank possession and control of the debtors’ real property; (3) whether further proceedings in the bankruptcy court and/or the order ente red as a result of the evidentiary hearing were barred by res judicata or because they were beyond the scope of our previous mandate; (4) whether the bankruptcy court’ s order denying their summary judgment motion represented an abuse of discreti on; (5) whether the purported original promissory note Deutsche Ba nk presented at the hearing was self-authenticating; (6) whether the bankruptcy court’s ruling on the authenticity of the proposed note was erroneous; (7) whether the bankruptc y court improperly granted Deutsche Bank’s motion for protective order; and (8) whether the district court abused its discretion by denying the debt ors’ post-judgment motion. Because the debtors did not file a new or amended notice of appeal from the district court’s denial of th eir Rule 8015 motion, we lack jurisdiction to address their eighth issue, and we therefore dismis s the appeal as to that issue. See Fed. R. App. P. 6(b)(2)(A)(ii) (“Appellate review of th e order disposing of the [8015] motion requires the party, in comp liance with Rules 3(c) and 6(b)(1)(B), to amend a previously filed notice of appeal.”). As for the remaining seven issues, “[i]n an appeal in a bankruptcy case, we independently review the bankruptcy court’s decision, applying the same standard as the . . . district court. We thus review the- 4 - bankruptcy court’s legal determinations de novo and its factual findings for clear
error.” Miller v. Bill & Carolyn Lt d. P’Ship (In re Baldwin) , 593 F.3d 1155, 1159 (10th Cir. 2010) (citations om itted). Having carefully revi ewed the briefs, the record, and the applicable law under the appropr iate review standa rds, we discern no reversible error in the issu es presented and therefore a ffirm the challenged judgment of the district court. Entered for the Court
Bobby R. Baldock Circuit Judge