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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

Download PDF
Appeal: 14-1912 Doc: 33 Filed: 07/23/2015 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1912 EDWARD R. KOHOUT, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES TRUSTEE, Trustee - Appellee.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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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?