Marc Labgold v. Judy Robbins

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:15-cv-00123-GBL-IDD,13-13389-BFK,14-01017-BFK Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999788689].. [15-2087]

Appeal: 15-2087

Doc: 24

Filed: 04/05/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-2087

In Re: MARC R. LABGOLD,
Debtor.
----------------------MARC R. LABGOLD,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JUDY A. ROBBINS, Office of the U.S. Trustee – Region 4,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District
Judge. (1:15-cv-00123-GBL-IDD)

Submitted:

March 31, 2016

Decided:

April 5, 2016

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Richard W. Driscoll, DRISCOLL & SELTZER, PLLC, Alexandria,
Virginia, for Appellant. Ramona D. Elliott, Deputy Director, P.
Matthew
Sutko,
Associate
General
Counsel,
John
Postulka,
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.; Judy A. Robbins, United
States Trustee for Region 4, Joseph A. Guzinski, Assistant

Appeal: 15-2087

Doc: 24

Filed: 04/05/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

United States Trustee, Bradley D. Jones, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 15-2087

Doc: 24

Filed: 04/05/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Marc R. Labgold appeals from the district court’s order
affirming the bankruptcy court’s order finding that he, within
one year of filing his bankruptcy petition, transferred a parcel
of real property with the intent to hinder, delay, or defraud
his creditors and denying him a discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C.
§ 727(a)(2)(A) (2012).

We have reviewed the parties’ arguments

and the record submitted on appeal and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court.

Labgold v. Robbins, No. 1:15-cv-00123-GBL-IDD (E.D. Va.

Aug. 14, 2015).
facts

and

materials

legal
before

We dispense with oral argument because the
contentions

are

adequately

this

and

argument

court

presented

would

not

in

the

aid

the

decisional process.
AFFIRMED

3