* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of

the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. This court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Filed 9/26/96 TENTH CIRCUIT

In re: CRAY COMPUTER CORPORATION,

Debtor,

----------------------------- WILLIAM KUNTZ, III,

Appellant,

v. CRAY COMPUTER CORPORATION,

Appellee. No. 96-1125 (D. Ct. No. 96-AP-329) (D. Colo.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before TACHA, BALDOCK, and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and the appellate record , this three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argument wouldnot be of material assistance in the determination of this appeal. Se e Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered sub mitted without oral argument.- 2 -

Appellant William Kuntz III appeals from the distri ct court’s dismissal of his appeal from the bankruptcy court’s Order Approv ing the Sale of All of the Debtor’s Patent Assets and Certain Related Intellec tual Property (the “Order”). Jurisdiction is based upon 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We dismiss the appeal as moot. The bankruptcy court entered the Order on January 2 9, 1996. On February 2, 1996, International Business Machines Corp. (“IB M”) filed a motion to correct an oversight or omission in the Order under Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9024 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a). On February 7, 1996, the bankruptcycourt granted IBM’s motion and entered a modified Order correcting the omissio ns identified by IBM. Appellant opposed the sale of the assets and on Feb ruary 9, 1996, he filed a notice of appeal in the district court. On February 13, 1996, the district court issued an Order to Show Cause requiring appellant t o show cause within ten days why the bankruptcy appeal should not be dismissed f or appellant’s failure to file the notice of appeal within ten days of the entry o f the Order. On February 27, 1996, the district court dismissed the appeal--the same day that appellant filed his untimely response to the Order to Show Cause. The sale of the patent assets that were the subject of the Order of the bankruptcy cou rt has since been consummated. Neither the bankruptcy court nor the district court granted a stay of the Order pending appeal. Under Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8002(b)(4) a timely motion under Fed R. Bankr. P.- 3 -

9024 by one party tolls the time period in which al l other parties may file a notice of appeal until entry of the order that resolves th e Rule 9024 motion. Therefore, it appears that IBM’s motion tolled the period in w hich Kuntz could file a notice of appeal, rendering appellant’s appeal of the bank ruptcy court’s Order timely. However, the court need not decide whether appellan t’s failure to timely respond to the district court’s Order to Show Cause waived any objection to the dismissal of his appeal, because this appeal is moot. In its Order, as modified, the bankruptcy court fou nd that the purchaser of debtor’s patent assets, Dasu, L.L.C., is a good fai th purchaser under 11 U.S.C. § 363(m). Under § 363(m) the validity of the sale of a debtor’s property is unaffected by the reversal or modification of the o rder permitting the sale under § 363(b) or (c), unless the sale permitted by the o rder is stayed pending appeal. Therefore, a finding of good faith under § 363(m) m oots appeals in cases “where the only remedies available are those that affect t he validity of the sale.” In re Osborn , 24 F.3d 1199, 1203-04 (10th Cir. 1994); see also In re Whatley , 169 B.R. 698, 700-01 (D. Colo. 1994), aff’d , 54 F.3d 788 (10th Cir. 1995). Because appellant objects only to the validity of the sale, his appeal is hereby DISMISSED
as moot.- 4 -

The mandate shall issue forthwith. ENTERED FOR THE COURT,

Deanell Reece Tacha Circuit Judge