Bell v. Rehder

Fourth Circuit

Bell v. Rehder

322 F. App'x 291

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedApril 15, 2009

DocketNo. 08-1500

StatusPublished

This text of 322 F. App'x 291 (Bell v. Rehder) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bell v. Rehder, 322 F. App'x 291 (4th Cir. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Alfred Luis Rehder appeals from the district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s order determining that the restitution debt he owed to the State of Maryland was non-dischargeable in his Chapter 7 bankruptcy case and determin[292]*292ing that the restitution judgment entered as part of Maryland’s criminal sentencing process was also non-dischargeable. We have reviewed the record and the briefs filed by the parties and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Bell v. Rehder, No. 8:07-cv01231-MJG (D. Md. filed Mar. 25, 2008; entered Mar. 26, 2008). 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Alfred Luis Rehder appeals from the district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s order determining that the restitution debt he owed to the State of Maryland was non-dischargeable in his Chapter 7 bankruptcy case and determin[292]*292ing that the restitution judgment entered as part of Maryland’s criminal sentencing process was also non-dischargeable. We have reviewed the record and the briefs filed by the parties and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Bell v. Rehder, No. 8:07-cv01231-MJG (D. Md. filed Mar. 25, 2008; entered Mar. 26, 2008). 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

322 F. App'x 291, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bell-v-rehder-ca4-2009.