Matter of Crowe

Full title: In re: Cheryl A. CROWE, Debtor. Jack FERM, Appellant-Appellant, v. UNITED…

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Dec 14, 2000

246 F.3d 673 (9th Cir. 2000)

Opinion

246 F.3d 673 (9th Cir. 2000) In re: Cheryl A. CROWE, Debtor. Jack FERM, Appellant-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES TRUSTEE, Appellee-Appellee. No. 00-15282. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit December 14, 2000

Submitted December 4, 2000 ²

2 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

BAP No. NV-98-01728-RMaMe

Editorial Note:

This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA9 Rule 36-3 regarding use of unpublished opinions)

Appeal from the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Russell, Marlar, and Meyers, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding.

Before TROTT, GRABER, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM ¹

1 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Jack Ferm appeals pro se the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel's ("BAP") affirmance of the bankruptcy court's default judgment against Ferm enjoining him from preparing bankruptcy petitions. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review BAP decisions de novo, see Ardmor Vending Co. v. Kim (In re Kim), 130 F.3d 863, 865 (9th Cir.1997), and we affirm.

Ferm's contention that the bankruptcy court lacked jurisdiction because he is not a bankruptcy petition preparer is without merit because the complaint alleges facts showing that Ferm is a petition preparer and "[u]pon entry of a default judgment, facts alleged to establish liability are binding upon the defaulting party, and those matters may not be relitigated on appeal." Alan Neuman Prods., Inc. v. Albright, 862 F.2d 1388, 1392 (9th Cir.1989).

To the extent Ferm contends that the bankruptcy court's order enjoining him from preparing bankruptcy petitions violates the First Amendment, his contention lacks merit. See United States v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367, 376-77 (1968).

We do not reach Ferm's arguments that prior bankruptcy court orders and bankruptcy guidelines deprived him of due process because these issues are being raised for the first time on appeal. See Ryther v. Lumber Products, Inc. (In re Ryther), 799 F.2d 1412, 1414 (9th Cir.1986). Ferm's remaining contentions are without merit.

AFFIRMED.