United States Trustee v. Edward Kohout
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:13-cv-00183-IMK,1:10-bk-00303 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999626030].. [14-1912]
Appeal: 14-1912
Doc: 33
Filed: 07/23/2015
Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-1912
EDWARD R. KOHOUT,
Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES TRUSTEE,
Trustee - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg.
Irene M. Keeley,
District Judge. (1:13-cv-00183-IMK)
Submitted:
July 21, 2015
Decided:
July 23, 2015
Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Edward R. Kohout, Appellant Pro Se.
Ramona D. Elliott, Deputy
Director/General Counsel, P. Matthew Sutko, Associate General
Counsel, Sumi K. Sakata, Trial Attorney, Executive Office for
United States Trustees, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Washington, DC, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 14-1912
Doc: 33
Filed: 07/23/2015
Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Edward R. Kohout appeals the district court’s order affirming
the
bankruptcy
court’s
order:
(1)
sustaining
the
Trustee’s
objection to Kohout’s application for employment as counsel in the
underlying bankruptcy proceeding, and (2) requiring Kohout to
disgorge $24,000 in fees he received for legal services.
We have
reviewed the parties’ briefs and the record included on appeal and
have found no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm for the
reasons stated by the district court.
United States Trustee v.
Kohout, No. 1:13-cv-00183-IMK (N.D.W. Va. Aug. 4, 2014).
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 in the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?