Opinion ID: 815012
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: standard of review

Text: We review a bankruptcy appeal from the district court “applying the same standard to the bankruptcy court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law that 4 No. 12-60234 the district court applied.” In re Morrison, 555 F.3d 473, 480 (5th Cir. 2009). Namely, we review “findings of fact . . . for clear error[] and . . . conclusions of law . . . de novo.” Id. We review mixed questions of law and fact de novo. In re San Patricio Cnty. Cmty. Action Agency, 575 F.3d 553, 557 (5th Cir. 2009). Whether a transfer constitutes an avoidable preference is a question of law; however, we review the fact question underlying any element of the Trustee’s preference claim for clear error. See In re Ramba, Inc., 416 F.3d 394, 401-02 (5th Cir. 2005). “A finding of fact is clearly erroneous only if on the entire evidence, the court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” In re Duncan, 562 F.3d 688, 694 (5th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). If the bankruptcy court’s view of the evidence “is plausible in light of the record viewed in its entirety, [we] may not reverse it even though convinced that had [we] been sitting as a trier of fact, [we] would have weighed the evidence differently.” In re Martin, 963 F.2d 809, 814 (5th Cir. 1992) (quoting Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 574 (1985)) (internal quotation marks omitted). In fact, “[if] there are two permissible views of the evidence, the factfinder’s choice between them cannot be clearly erroneous.” Id. (quoting Anderson, 470 U.S. at 574) (internal quotation marks omitted).