Roy C. Lewellen v. Wildlife Farms

Eighth Circuit

Roy C. Lewellen v. Wildlife Farms

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 19, 2009

Docket08-2046

StatusPublished

This text of Roy C. Lewellen v. Wildlife Farms (Roy C. Lewellen v. Wildlife Farms) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Roy C. Lewellen v. Wildlife Farms, (8th Cir. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________

No. 08-2046 ___________

Roy C. Lewellen, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Arkansas. Wildlife Farms II, LLC, * et al., * * Appellees. * ___________

Submitted: December 12, 2008 Filed: February 19, 2009 ___________

Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, BEAM, Circuit Judge, and KYLE,1 District Judge. ___________

KYLE, District Judge.

Attorney Roy C. Lewellen challenges the bankruptcy court’s2 order, and the district court’s3 affirmance thereof, imposing a $10,000 sanction against him 1 The Honorable Richard H. Kyle, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, sitting by designation. 2 The Honorable James G. Mixon, United States Bankruptcy Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. 3 The Honorable James M. Moody, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 9011. The sanction resulted from Lewellen’s filing of a Motion for Relief from Stay, which both the bankruptcy court and the district court found to be legally baseless and filed for the improper purpose of hindering the sale of land and harassing opposing parties.

After careful review of the proceedings below, including the thorough and well-reasoned opinions of both the bankruptcy court4 and the district court,5 we conclude that both the imposition of monetary sanctions and the amount thereof were warranted by the facts of the case and imposed in compliance with the applicable legal standards. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________

4 In re Robinson, 373 B.R. 612 (Bankr. E.D. Ark. 2007). 5 In re Robinson, Nos. 4:07MC00005 JMM, 4:07MC00006 JMM, 4:07CV000489 JMM, 2:07CV000089 JMM, 2:07CV000129 JMM, 2:07CV000130 JMM, 2:07MC000001 JMM, 2:08CV000014 JMM, 2008 WL 1697129 (E.D. Ark. Apr. 10, 2008).

-2-

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

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________

No. 08-2046 ___________

Roy C. Lewellen, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Arkansas. Wildlife Farms II, LLC, * et al., * * Appellees. * ___________

Submitted: December 12, 2008 Filed: February 19, 2009 ___________

Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, BEAM, Circuit Judge, and KYLE,1 District Judge. ___________

KYLE, District Judge.

Attorney Roy C. Lewellen challenges the bankruptcy court’s2 order, and the district court’s3 affirmance thereof, imposing a $10,000 sanction against him 1 The Honorable Richard H. Kyle, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, sitting by designation. 2 The Honorable James G. Mixon, United States Bankruptcy Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. 3 The Honorable James M. Moody, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 9011. The sanction resulted from Lewellen’s filing of a Motion for Relief from Stay, which both the bankruptcy court and the district court found to be legally baseless and filed for the improper purpose of hindering the sale of land and harassing opposing parties.

After careful review of the proceedings below, including the thorough and well-reasoned opinions of both the bankruptcy court4 and the district court,5 we conclude that both the imposition of monetary sanctions and the amount thereof were warranted by the facts of the case and imposed in compliance with the applicable legal standards. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________

4 In re Robinson, 373 B.R. 612 (Bankr. E.D. Ark. 2007). 5 In re Robinson, Nos. 4:07MC00005 JMM, 4:07MC00006 JMM, 4:07CV000489 JMM, 2:07CV000089 JMM, 2:07CV000129 JMM, 2:07CV000130 JMM, 2:07MC000001 JMM, 2:08CV000014 JMM, 2008 WL 1697129 (E.D. Ark. Apr. 10, 2008).

-2-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Roy C. Lewellen v. Wildlife Farms, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roy-c-lewellen-v-wildlife-farms-ca8-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack