Court Opinion

ID: 9880848
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-28 21:00:31.907542+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:16.025539
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1181      Doc: 28         Filed: 09/27/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-1181

        BYRON F. DAVID,

                            Debtor - Appellant,

                     v.

        SUMMIT COMMUNITY BANK,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Alexandria. Rossie David Alston, Jr., District Judge. (1:20-cv-00721-RDA-JFA)

        Submitted: October 17, 2022                                 Decided: September 27, 2023

        Before DIAZ, Chief Judge, and GREGORY and HARRIS, Circuit Judges

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: James P. Campbell, Matthew W. Clark, CAMPBELL FLANNERY, P.C.,
        Leesburg, Virginia, for Appellant. Quinton B. Callahan, CLARK & BRADSHAW, P.C.,
        Harrisonburg, Virginia, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1181      Doc: 28          Filed: 09/27/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Byron F. David appeals the district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s

        decision to allow Summit Community Bank’s Claim 4-3 against David’s bankruptcy estate.

        David argues that the bankruptcy court erred by admitting into evidence a copy of the

        signed guarantee underlying Claim 4-3, and that Summit spoliated evidence by failing to

        retain the original guarantee.

               “In reviewing the judgment of a district court sitting in review of a bankruptcy court,

        we apply the same standard of review that was applied by the district court.” Copley v.

        United States, 959 F.3d 118, 121 (4th Cir. 2020). Thus, “we review the bankruptcy court’s

        legal conclusions de novo, its factual findings for clear error, and any discretionary

        decisions for abuse of discretion.” Id. With these standards in mind, we have reviewed

        the record and the arguments of the parties and find no reversible error. We therefore

        affirm the district court’s judgment. And 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

                                                      2