Chrysler Financial v. Burns ( 2003 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-1002
In Re: JERRY WILLIAMS,
Debtor.
CHRYSLER FINANCIAL; SONIC CHRYSLER-PLYMOUTH-
JEEP, LLC, d/b/a Lake Norman Chrysler Plymouth
Jeep,
Creditors - Appellants,
versus
W. JOSEPH BURNS, Trustee,
Trustee - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr.,
Chief District Judge. (CA-01-944-1, BK-01-50277)
Submitted: June 19, 2003 Decided: June 24, 2003
Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges.*
*
The opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 46(d).
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Franklin Drake, SMITH, DEBNAM, NARRON, WYCHE, STORY & MYERS,
L.L.P., Raleigh, North Carolina; Kiah T. Ford, IV, PARKER, POE,
ADAMS & BERNSTEIN, L.L.P., Charlotte, North Carolina, for
Appellants. William J. Burns, BURNS & ARNEKE, L.L.P., Winston-
Salem, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
2
PER CURIAM:
Chrysler Financial and Sonic Chrysler-Plymouth-Jeep, LLC,
doing business as Lake Norman Chrysler Plymouth Jeep,
(“Appellants”) appeal from the district court’s order affirming the
bankruptcy court’s order denying their motion for relief from the
automatic stay in bankruptcy after finding that Appellants had not
perfected their lien in the Debtor’s vehicle within twenty days and
therefore the lien was avoidable under 11 U.S.C. § 547(c)(3)(B)
(2000). This court reviews the judgment of a district court
sitting in review of a bankruptcy court de novo, applying the same
standards of review that were applied in the district court. See
Three Sisters Partners, L.L.C. v. Harden (In re Shangra-La, Inc.),
167 F.3d 843, 847 (4th Cir. 1999). Our review of the record and
the bankruptcy court’s opinion discloses no reversible error.
Accordingly, we grant Appellee’s motion to amend his brief and
affirm on the reasoning of the bankruptcy court. Chrysler Financial
v. Burns, CA-01-944-1 (M.D.N.C. Nov. 20, 2002). We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3