From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Shasta Paper Co.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Sep 27, 2005
No. 04-15077 (9th Cir. Sep. 27, 2005)

Opinion


In re: SHASTA PAPER COMPANY, Debtor, CELESTE DRAISNER; et al., Appellants, v. SHASTA PAPER COMPANY; et al., Appellees. No. 04-15077 United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit September 27, 2005

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

Submitted September 12, 2005

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

Appeal from the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel BAP No. EC-03-01051-MaPRy Marlar, Perris, and Ryan, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding

Before: REINHARDT, RYMER, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM

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

Celeste Draisner and other citizens of Shasta County (§Citizens§) appeal pro se from the decision of the Bankruptcy Appeals Panel (§BAP§) dismissing for lack of standing their appeal from the bankruptcy court§s order approving Trustee John W. Reger§s motion to sell emission reduction credits to Knauf Fiber Glass. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). Reviewing for clear error, McClellan Fed. Credit Union v. Parker (In re Parker), 139 F.3d 668, 670 (9th Cir. 1998), we affirm the BAP§s factual determination that the Citizens did not qualify as §aggrieved parties.§ See Duckor Spradling & Metzger v. Baum Trust (In re P.R.T.C., Inc.), 177 F.3d 774, 777 (9th Cir. 1999). Accordingly, the BAP properly dismissed the appeal for lack of standing. See id.

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

In re Shasta Paper Co.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Sep 27, 2005
No. 04-15077 (9th Cir. Sep. 27, 2005)
Case details for

In re Shasta Paper Co.

Case Details

Full title:In re: SHASTA PAPER COMPANY, Debtor, v. SHASTA PAPER COMPANY; et al.…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Sep 27, 2005

Citations

No. 04-15077 (9th Cir. Sep. 27, 2005)