Case Name: In re Marc R. LABGOLD, Debtor. Marc R. Labgold, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Judy A. Robbins, Office of the U.S. Trustee-Region 4, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-04-05
Citations: 643 F. App'x 278
Docket Number: No. 15-2087
Parties: In re Marc R. LABGOLD, Debtor. Marc R. Labgold, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Judy A. Robbins, Office of the U.S. Trustee—Region 4, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Bankruptcy Reporter
Volume: 554
Pages: 278–278

Head Matter:
In re Marc R. LABGOLD, Debtor. Marc R. Labgold, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Judy A. Robbins, Office of the U.S. Trustee—Region 4, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 15-2087.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 31, 2016.
Decided: April 5, 2016.
Richard W. Driscoll, Driscoll & Seltzer, PLLC, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Ramona D. Elliott, Deputy Director, P. Matthew Sutko, Associate General Counsel, John Postulka, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.; Judy A. Robbins, United States Trustee for Region 4, Joseph A. Guzinski, Assistant United States Trustee, Bradley D. Jones, Department of Justice, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Marc R. Labgold appeals from the district court's order affirming the bankruptcy court's order finding that he, within .one year of filing his bankruptcy petition, transferred a parcel of real property with the intent to hinder, delay, or defraud his creditors and denying him a discharge pursuant to 11 U:S.C. § 727(a)(2)(A) (2012). We have reviewed the parties' arguments and the record submitted on appeal and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Labgold v. Robbins, No. 1:15-cv-00123-GBL-IDD (E.D.Va. Aug. 14, 2015). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.