United States Trustee William T. Neary v. Keravision, Inc.

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: September 7, 2005
• Docket: 03-16067
• Status: Published

Opinion

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES TRUSTEE, William  No. 03-16067 T. Neary, Appellant, D.C. No. v.  CV-03-00210-CRB JUDGMENT KERAVISION, INC., ORDER Debtor-Appellee.  Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Charles R. Breyer, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted February 9, 2005—San Francisco, California

Filed September 7, 2005

Before: J. Clifford Wallace, Johnnie B. Rawlinson, and Carlos T. Bea, Circuit Judges.

COUNSEL

Eric D. Miller (briefed and argued), and Robert M. Loeb (briefed), United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for the appellant.

Peter M. Gilhuly (briefed and argued), Kathryn M. Davis (briefed), and Eric D. Brown (briefed), Latham & Watkins LLP, Los Angeles, California, for the appellee.

12515 12516 UNITED STATES TRUSTEE v. KERAVISION, INC. ORDER

We affirm the judgment entered by the district court for the reasons stated in its opinion approving the appointment of the law firm. See In re Keravision, Inc., 273 B.R. 614 (N.D. Cal. 2002).1 The trustee did not raise the rules of professional responsibility in challenging the law firm’s appointment before the district court. See id. at 618. Therefore, we decline to address that issue on appeal. See United States v. Alisal Water Corp., 370 F.3d 915, 923 (9th Cir. 2004).

AFFIRMED.

1 We have jurisdiction over this appeal because the order awarding attor- neys’ fees is a final determination of the payment to be distributed to Latham from the estate. See Yermakov v. Fitzsimmons (In re Yermakov), 718 F.2d 1465, 1469 (9th Cir. 1983). PRINTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE—U.S. COURTS BY THOMSON/WEST—SAN FRANCISCO

The summary, which does not constitute a part of the opinion of the court, is copyrighted © 2005 Thomson/West.