Case Name: In re: UPLAND PARTNERS, a Hawaii Limited Partnership, Debtor. William S. Ellis, Jr., Appellant, v. Richard Emery, Trustee-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-11-25
Citations: 301 F. App'x 697
Docket Number: No. 07-17263
Parties: In re: UPLAND PARTNERS, a Hawaii Limited Partnership, Debtor. William S. Ellis, Jr., Appellant, v. Richard Emery, Trustee—Appellee.
Judges: Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 301
Pages: 697–697

Head Matter:
In re: UPLAND PARTNERS, a Hawaii Limited Partnership, Debtor. William S. Ellis, Jr., Appellant, v. Richard Emery, Trustee—Appellee.
No. 07-17263.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 13, 2008.
Filed Nov. 25, 2008.
Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
William S. Ellis, Jr., an unsecured creditor in the bankruptcy estate of Chapter 11 debtor Upland Partners, appeals pro se from the district court's judgments affirming the bankruptcy court's orders awarding interim and final fees and costs to the bankruptcy trustee and his counsel. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). "We review decisions of the bankruptcy court independently without deference to the district court's determinations." Leichty v. Neary (In re Strand), 375 F.3d 854, 857 (9th Cir.2004). We affirm.
The district court properly rejected Ellis's contention that the amount of fees and costs awarded was excessive in relation to the benefit to the estate and the creditors. See id. at 860-61 (reviewing award of attorneys' fees for an abuse of discretion). The district court also properly rejected Ellis's argument that the trustee engaged in unnecessary work when he moved to sell the property of the estate rather than dismiss the case and when he sought sanctions against Ellis for conveying property of the estate to third parties in violation of the automatic stay.
We do not consider Ellis's argument that certain fees and costs were not compensable under 11 U.S.C. § 506(c), because this argument exceeds the scope of the appeal certified by the district court.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.