Court Opinion

ID: 9412237
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-28 21:01:59.573863+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:41:33.618514
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-2099      Doc: 28        Filed: 07/27/2023    Pg: 1 of 3

                                           UNPUBLISHED

                              UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                  FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-2099

        LUIS JANER RULLAN,

                            Creditor - Appellant,

                     and

        GEORGE WILLIAM LIEBMANN,

                            Trustee - Appellant,

                     v.

        JILL K. GODEN,

                            Debtor - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
        Catherine C. Blake, Senior District Judge. (1:21-cv-02887-CCB; 1:21-cv-03170-CCB;
        1:21-cv-03171-CCB)

        Submitted: July 25, 2023                                        Decided: July 27, 2023

        Before WYNN and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-2099      Doc: 28         Filed: 07/27/2023    Pg: 2 of 3

        George W. Liebmann, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Peter C. Choharis, CHOHARIS LAW
        GROUP, PLLC, Washington, D.C., for Appellant Luis Janer Rullan.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

                                                    2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-2099     Doc: 28        Filed: 07/27/2023    Pg: 3 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

              Luis Janer Rullan and George William Liebmann appeal from the district court’s

        order affirming the bankruptcy court’s orders dismissing Jill K. Goden’s Chapter 7

        bankruptcy case, denying Rullan’s motion for sanctions, and denying as moot Liebmann’s

        pending motions. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error and no abuse

        of discretion. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Rullan v. Goden, Nos.

        1:21-cv-02887-CCB; 1:21-cv-03170-CCB; 1:21-cv-03171-CCB (D. Md. Sept. 21, 2022).

        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

                                                  3