Case Name: United States Trustee, William T. NEARY, Appellant, v. KERAVISION, INC., Debtor-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-09-07
Citations: 421 F.3d 1153
Docket Number: No. 03-16067
Parties: United States Trustee, William T. NEARY, Appellant, v. KERAVISION, INC., Debtor-Appellee.
Judges: Before WALLACE, RAWLINSON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 3d Series
Volume: 421
Pages: 1153–1154

Head Matter:
United States Trustee, William T. NEARY, Appellant, v. KERAVISION, INC., Debtor-Appellee.
No. 03-16067.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Feb. 9, 2005.
Filed Sept. 7, 2005.
Eric D. Miller (briefed and argued), and Robert M. Loeb (briefed), United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for the appellant.
Peter M. Gilhuly (briefed and argued), Kathryn M. Davis (briefed), and Eric D. Brown (briefed), Latham & Watkins LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for the appellee.
Before WALLACE, RAWLINSON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
JUDGMENT ORDER
ORDER
We affirm the judgment entered by the district court for the reasons stated in its opinion approving the appointment of the law firm. See In re Keravision, Inc., 273 B.R. 614 (N.D.Cal.2002). The trustee did not raise the rules of professional responsibility in challenging the law firm's appointment before the district court. See id. at 618. Therefore, we decline to address that issue on appeal. See United States v. Alisal Water Corp., 370 F.3d 915, 923 (9th Cir.2004).
AFFIRMED.
. We have jurisdiction over this appeal because the order awarding attorneys' fees is a final determination of the payment to be distributed to Latham from the estate. See Yermakov v. Fitzsimmons (In re Yermakov), 718 F.2d 1465, 1469 (9th Cir.1983).