Court Opinion

ID: 9391684
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-02 21:00:36.010232+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:43.808480
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-2070      Doc: 24         Filed: 05/01/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-2070

        PUBLIC-SECTOR SOLUTIONS, INC.,

                            Debtor - Appellant,

                     v.

        HUNT & ASSOCIATES, P.C.,

                            Creditor - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
        James K. Bredar, Chief District Judge. (1:21-cv-02424-JKB)

        Submitted: March 28, 2023                                            Decided: May 1, 2023

        Before WYNN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Arthur G. Kahn, ARTHUR G. KAHN, PLLC, Silver Spring, Maryland, for
        Appellant. Alan M. Grochal, TYDINGS & ROSENBERG LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, for
        Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-2070       Doc: 24         Filed: 05/01/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Public-Sector Solutions, Inc. (“PSS”) appeals the district court’s order affirming the

        bankruptcy court’s order denying PSS’s motion to reopen its bankruptcy case.              “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.

               As a threshold matter, we mostly agree with Appellee Hunt & Associates, P.C. that

        PSS has forfeited appellate review by either failing to raise its arguments before the

        bankruptcy court or failing to challenge the basis of the bankruptcy court’s decision. See

        Hicks v. Ferreyra, 965 F.3d 302, 310 (4th Cir. 2020); Grayson O Co. v. Agadir Int’l, LLC,

        856 F.3d 307, 316 (4th Cir. 2017); Rusnack v. Cardinal Bank, N.A., 695 F. App’x 704, 711

        (4th Cir. 2017) (No. 16-1676) (argued but unpublished). We conclude that PSS properly

        preserved its challenge to the bankruptcy court’s factual findings. But we find no clear

        error in these findings.

               Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. 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