Public-Sector Solutions, Inc. v. Hunt & Associates, P.C.

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: May 1, 2023
• Docket: 22-2070
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 22-2070 Doc: 24 Filed: 05/01/2023 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-2070

PUBLIC-SECTOR SOLUTIONS, INC.,

Debtor - Appellant,

v.

HUNT & ASSOCIATES, P.C.,

Creditor - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. James K. Bredar, Chief District Judge. (1:21-cv-02424-JKB)

Submitted: March 28, 2023 Decided: May 1, 2023

Before WYNN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Arthur G. Kahn, ARTHUR G. KAHN, PLLC, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Appellant. Alan M. Grochal, TYDINGS & ROSENBERG LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-2070 Doc: 24 Filed: 05/01/2023 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Public-Sector Solutions, Inc. (“PSS”) appeals the district court’s order affirming the

bankruptcy court’s order denying PSS’s motion to reopen its bankruptcy case. “In

reviewing the judgment of a district court sitting in review of a bankruptcy court, we apply

the same standard of review that was applied by the district court.” Copley v. United States,

959 F.3d 118, 121 (4th Cir. 2020). Thus, “we review the bankruptcy court’s legal

conclusions de novo, its factual findings for clear error, and any discretionary decisions for

abuse of discretion.” Id.

As a threshold matter, we mostly agree with Appellee Hunt & Associates, P.C. that

PSS has forfeited appellate review by either failing to raise its arguments before the

bankruptcy court or failing to challenge the basis of the bankruptcy court’s decision. See

Hicks v. Ferreyra, 965 F.3d 302, 310 (4th Cir. 2020); Grayson O Co. v. Agadir Int’l, LLC,

856 F.3d 307, 316 (4th Cir. 2017); Rusnack v. Cardinal Bank, N.A., 695 F. App’x 704, 711

(4th Cir. 2017) (No. 16-1676) (argued but unpublished). We conclude that PSS properly

preserved its challenge to the bankruptcy court’s factual findings. But we find no clear

error in these findings.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. 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 the decisional process.

AFFIRMED