UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

CHRISTOPHER J. REDMOND, Trustee 

of the Bankruptcy Estate of Ashraf Fouad 

Hassan and Irina Hassan, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

and 

KANSAS EXPRESS INTERNATIONAL, 

INC., 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

ASHRAF FOUAD HASSAN, 

 Defendant - Appellant, 

and 

BILAL SAID, a/k/a Bill Said; 

INTERNATIONAL FOOTBALL CLUB, 

INC., c/o John E. Erwin, Registered Agent; 

OVERLAND PARK SPORTS 

COMPLEX, LLC, c/o Bilal Said, 

Registered Agent; TERRA SPORTS 

GROUP, LLC, c/o PW&S Agent Services 

of Kansas, Inc.; TERRA VENTURE, INC., 

f/k/a Terra Venture Holding Company; 

TERRA VENTURE INVESTMENTS, 

LLC; ANALYTICAL MANAGEMENT 

LABORATORIES, INC.; MARK 

MURPHY; MURPHY LAW FIRM; 

DIANE MOSER; AL MOSER; KANSAS 

CITY LIMOUSINE, INC., and BUDGET 

LIMOUSINE; FINAL TOUCH, INC., 

 

 Defendants. 

No. 14-3236 

(D.C. No. 2:12-CV-02645-OS) 

(D. Kan.) 

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

July 9, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 14-3236 Document: 01019456652 Date Filed: 07/09/2015 Page: 1 
2 

_________________________________ 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

_________________________________ 

Before HARTZ, TYMKOVICH, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

Proceeding pro se, Ashraf Fouad Hassan appeals the district court’s judgment in 

an adversary proceeding arising from his Chapter 7 Bankruptcy. Because Hassan’s brief 

cites neither legal authority nor the record on appeal, and because he has failed to add a 

critical transcript to the record, we conclude he has forfeited appellate review. 

Accordingly, we affirm. 

Appellee Christopher J. Redmond, the Trustee of Hassan’s bankruptcy estate, 

initiated an adversary proceeding against Hassan based on the post-petition sale of 

Hassan’s limousine business. After a two-day bench trial, the district court concluded the 

sale constituted an unauthorized transfer of property belonging to the bankruptcy estate. 

As a result, the district court revoked Hassan’s bankruptcy discharge and entered 

judgment against him in the amount of $944,400.16. Hassan appealed. 

Because Hassan proceeds pro se, we liberally construe his brief and apply a more 

forgiving standard than the one we apply to attorney-drafted filings. Garrett v. Selby 

Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005). Still, pro se parties must 

																																																								 *

 After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined 

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination 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 doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may 

be cited, however, for its persuasive value. See Fed. R. App. P. 32.1; 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

Appellate Case: 14-3236 Document: 01019456652 Date Filed: 07/09/2015 Page: 2 
3 

follow the same procedural rules that govern other litigants. So while we will make some 

allowances for Hassan’s pro se status, we will not act as his advocate by formulating 

arguments or scouring the record. Id. 

Hassan raises multiple arguments in his opening brief. But he doesn’t cite any 

legal authority or the portions of the record that might support those arguments. See Fed. 

R. App. P. 28(a)(8)(A) (requiring appellant’s brief to include “citations to the authorities 

and parts of the record on which the appellant relies”). And although Hassan suggests 

that some of the district court’s findings and conclusions lack support in the record, he 

fails to provide us with the trial transcript. See Fed. R. App. P. 10(b)(2) (requiring 

appellant to include relevant transcripts if asserting district court’s findings are 

unsupported by, or contrary to, evidence). Thus, we decline to address Hassan’s 

arguments. See United States v. Brody, 705 F.3d 1277, 1281 (10th Cir. 2013) (explaining 

that failure to file necessary transcripts precludes substantive appellate review); Bronson 

v. Swensen, 500 F.3d 1099, 1104 (10th Cir. 2007) (noting we routinely refuse to consider 

arguments that fail to meet the requirements of Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28). 

Because we conclude Hassan has forfeited appellate review by failing to comply 

with the applicable procedural rules, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 

Entered for the Court, 

Nancy L. Moritz 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 14-3236 Document: 01019456652 Date Filed: 07/09/2015 Page: 3