Case Name: In the Matter of Nina WHITE-ROBINSON, Debtor. Nina White-Robinson; Mpatanishi Tayari Garrett, Appellants, v. Coventry II DDR/Trademark Montgomery Farm, L.P., Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-01-02
Citations: 551 F. App'x 121
Docket Number: No. 12-11238
Parties: In the Matter of Nina WHITE-ROBINSON, Debtor. Nina White-Robinson; Mpatanishi Tayari Garrett, Appellants, v. Coventry II DDR/Trademark Montgomery Farm, L.P., Appellee.
Judges: Before STEWART, Chief Judge, JOLLY and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 551
Pages: 121–122

Head Matter:
In the Matter of Nina WHITE-ROBINSON, Debtor. Nina White-Robinson; Mpatanishi Tayari Garrett, Appellants, v. Coventry II DDR/Trademark Montgomery Farm, L.P., Appellee.
No. 12-11238.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Jan. 2, 2014.
Mpatanishi Tayari Garrett, Dallas, TX, pro se.
Mark A. Goodman, Attorney, Daniel Joseph Madden, Esq., David, Goodman & Madole, P.C., Dallas, TX, for Appellee.
Before STEWART, Chief Judge, JOLLY and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
In this bankruptcy matter, the debtor and her attorney challenge the district court's affirmance of three actions of the bankruptcy court: (1) the denial of the debtor's motion for contempt that had alleged the creditor's violation of the automatic stay; (2) the quashing of the debtor's subpoena and ordering debtor's attorney to pay the creditor $5,000 in sanctions; and (3) an order directing debtor's lawyer to pay the creditor $20,000 in sanctions. The district court explained its affirmance in a thorough and well-reasoned order dated November 13, 2012.
We have reviewed the briefs and applicable law and have examined pertinent portions of the record. Out of an abundance of caution, we also entertained oral argument. There is no abuse of discretion or other reversible error. The judgment of the district court, affirming the various actions of the bankruptcy court, is AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.