In Re Richard C. Bartel, Debtor.richard C. Bartel, Defendant-appellant, v. William E. Garrett, Plaintiff-appellee, 4 F.3d 984 (4th Cir. 1993)

Annotate this Case
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit - 4 F.3d 984 (4th Cir. 1993)

Submitted July 29, 1993
Decided Sept. 2, 1993


Appeal from the United States District Court, for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore, Nos. CA-92-2132-HAR, BK-91-5-3395-SD; John R. Hargrove, District Judge.

Richard C. Bartel, pro se.

Amram H. Feldman, Kawior & Feldman, Silver Spring, MD, for plaintiff-appellee.

D. Md.

AFFIRMED.

Before PHILLIPS, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:


Richard C. Bartel appeals from the district court's order affirming the determination by the bankruptcy court that the debt owed to William E. Garrett is non-dischargeable. Our review of the record and the district court's opinion discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court.*  Bartel v. Garrett, Nos. CA-92-2132-HAR, BK-91-5-3395-SD (D. Md. Feb. 8, 1993). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.

 *

We have considered Bartel's numerous arguments and find them to be without merit. Garrett's complaint was timely filed. 11 U.S.C.A. Rule 1019 (West Supp.1993); In re Jones, 966 F.2d 169, 173 (5th Cir. 1992). Additionally, the State court transcript was properly admitted in the bankruptcy court proceeding. See 11 U.S.C. Rule 9017 (1988); In re Maurice, 138 B.R. 890, 894 (Bankr.N.D. Ill. 1992). We further find that the bankruptcy court properly held the debt to be non-dischargeable. See In re Belfry, 862 F.2d 661, 662 (8th Cir. 1988)