### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit Byron White United States Courthouse

1823 Stout Street Denver, Colorado 80294 (303) 844-3157 Patrick J. Fisher, Jr. Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk Chief Deputy Clerk June 25, 1997

TO: All recipients of the captioned Order and Judgment RE: 96-3310, Quinstar Corp. v. Stoecker May 27, 1997 Please be advised of the following corrections to t he captioned decision: In the caption, Third-Party Defendant Ronald J. Fil brun is erroneously listed as Richard Filbrun. The second error is fou nd on page 3 of the decision, wherein the Court stated “At the conclusion of the trial, the jury answered each of the 52 questions on the special verdict form in fav or of Falcon Bridge and Mr. Stoecker.” In actuality, the jury answered each qu estion in favor of Quinstar Corporation and Ronald J. Filbrun. A corrected Order and Judgment is attached for yourconvenience. Very truly yours, Patrick Fisher, Clerk

Susie Tidwell Deputy Clerk encl.

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### MAY 27 1997 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

QUINSTAR CORPORATION, a Kansas corporation,Plaintiff-Counter-ClaimDefendant - Appellee,

v. FALCON BRIDGE INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant-Third-Party-Plaintiff, and WILLIAM J. STOECKER, Defendant-Counter-Claimant - Appellant,

v. RONALD J. FILBRUN, Third-Party-Defendant - Appellee. No. 96-3310 (D.C. No. 95-CV-1098) (D. Kan.)* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. -2- ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Before BRORBY, BARRETT, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges. After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materiallyassist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The c ase is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Defendant William J. Stoecker, as the primary share holder of Falcon Bridge Industries, Inc., entered into a written agreement to purchase the stock of Plaintiff Quinstar Corporation from its sole shareh older, Ronald J. Filbrun. In its complaint, Quinstar alleged that Mr. Stoecker and M r. Filbrun also entered into an oral contract under which Mr. Filbrun was to author ize an advance of $200,000 to Mr. Stoecker on Quinstar’s line of credit. In retu rn, Mr. Stoecker was to pay, within a week, $500,000 on the total amount Quinstar owed on the line of credit. Although Mr. Stoecker received the money, he failed to pay any amount toward the line of credit.1 Mr. Stoecker was represented by counsel in the district court but proceeds

pro se on appeal. He filed a pro se notice of appe al purportedly on behalf of himself and Falcon Bridge. Because a corporation c an appear only through counsel, see DeVilliers v. Atlas Corp. , 360 F.2d 292, 294 (10th Cir. 1966), we dismiss the appeal as to Falcon Bridge. We also no te that the issues Mr. Stoecker raises on appeal concern only Quinstar’s claims, an d not his counterclaims or claims against Mr. Filbrun. As a consequence, Mr. Filbrun is not implicated in this appeal. -3- Quinstar sought damages for breach of the oral contract and fraudulent misrepresentations related to the purchase agreement and the oral contract. Falcon Bridge and Mr. Stoecker filed counterclaims and third party claims against Quinstar and Mr. Filbrun, alleging fraud and breachof contract. At the conclusion of the trial, the jury answered each of the fifty-two questions on the special verdict form in favor of Quinstar Corporati on and Mr. Filbrun. It awarded Quinstar compensatory damages of $233,675 and punit ive damages of $50,000. Mr. Stoecker 1 appeals from the judgment entered upon the jury ve rdict. He argues that the district court erred (1) in admitti ng prejudicial evidence of representations that contradicted provisions of the written purchase agreement; (2) in reserving ruling on his motion for judgment as a matter of law, made at the close of evidence, and denying the motion as moot a fter the jury returned its verdict, and (3) in submitting the special verdict form to the jury. Each of these claims of error necessitates a reasoned review of t he evidence presented to the district court. See United States v. Rodriguez-Aguirre , 108 F.3d 1228, 1236 (10th-4-

Cir. 1997) (holding that, without transcripts, the appellate court has no means of determining whether the district court properly adm itted allegedly prejudicial evidence); Weese v. Schukman , 98 F.3d 542, 547 (10th Cir. 1996) (requiring a de novo review of the evidence to determine the propri ety of the district court’s ruling on a motion for a judgment as a matter of law); United States Fire Ins. Co. v. Pressed Steel Tank Co. , 852 F.2d 313, 318 (7th Cir. 1988) (determining, o n appellate review, whether the special verdict form included all material issues raised by the pleadings and evidence). Mr. Stoecker has failed to include a trial transcri pt in the record on appeal. An appellant bears the responsibility of providing this court with a proper record on appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 10; 10th Cir. R. 10.1.1. The reco rd must contain all portions of the transcript necessary to give th e court of appeals a complete and accurate record of the proceedings related to the i ssues on appeal. See King v. Unocal Corp. , 58 F.3d 586, 587 (10th Cir. 1995). Absent a tran script of the trial, we are effectively barred from any review of Mr. S toecker’s arguments on appeal. See id.

.-5-

We therefore AFFIRM the judgment of the United Stat es District Court for the District of Kansas. The mandate shall issue fo rthwith.

Entered for the Court

Wade Brorby Circuit Judge