Case Name: In re: R. Charles BRYFOGLE, Debtor. R. Charles Bryfogle, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Stanley Kartchner; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-12-13
Citations: 158 F. App'x 842
Docket Number: No. 05-15648. D.C. No. CV-03-00324-JMR
Parties: In re: R. Charles BRYFOGLE, Debtor. R. Charles Bryfogle, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Stanley Kartchner; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before GOODWIN, TASHIMA, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Bankruptcy Reporter
Volume: 338
Pages: 842–842

Head Matter:
In re: R. Charles BRYFOGLE, Debtor. R. Charles Bryfogle, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Stanley Kartchner; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
No. 05-15648. D.C. No. CV-03-00324-JMR.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 5, 2005.
Decided Dec. 13, 2005.
R. Charles Bryfogle, Hagensborg, BC, pro se.
Denise Ann Faulk, AGAZ—Office of the Arizona Attorney General, Phoenix, AZ, Bruce L. Skolnik, AGAZ—Office of the Arizona Attorney General, Tucson, AZ, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before GOODWIN, TASHIMA, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
R. Charles Bryfogle appeals pro se the district court's judgment dismissing appeal from a bankruptcy court order concluding that certain debts he owed the State of Arizona as sanctions for vexatious and frivolous litigation were non-dischargeable. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Emery v. World Savings & Loan Ass'n (In re Emery), 317 F.3d 1064, 1069 (9th Cir.2003). We affirm.
The debts in question were three separate punitive sanctions awarded to the Arizona Board of Regents against Bryfogle for vexatious and frivolous litigation. Because the Board of Regents is a governmental unit of the state of Arizona, see Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 15-1625(3), the district court properly concluded these debts were non-dischargeable, see 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(7); Warfel v. City of Saratoga (In re Warfel), 268 B.R. 205, 210 (9th Cir.BAP, 2001).
Bryfogle's remaining contentions lack merit.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.