Blum, Frank & Kamins Companies, Inc. v. Marzullo , 11 F. App'x 138 ( 2001 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 00-2207
    In Re: FRANK MARZULLO,
    Debtor.
    BLUM, FRANK & KAMINS COMPANIES, INCORPORATED,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    FRANK MARZULLO,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, District Judge. (CA-99-
    3801-MJG, AP-90-5060, AP-91-5169, BK-89-53695)
    Submitted:   March 30, 2001                 Decided:   April 24, 2001
    Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Fredric J. Einhorn, Rockville, Maryland, for Appellant.       Steven
    Sarfatti, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Frank Marzullo appeals from the district court’s order    af-
    firming the bankruptcy court’s determination that the debt Marzullo
    owed to Blum, Frank & Kamins Companies, Inc., was not dischargeable
    in his bankruptcy case.   In making this determination, the bank-
    ruptcy court held that collateral estoppel applied to a default
    judgment entered as a discovery sanction by the United States
    District Court for the District of Columbia and thus precluded the
    redetermination of whether Marzullo’s debt to Blum, Frank & Kamins
    was attributable to “money obtained by . . . actual fraud . . . or
    embezzlement.”    See 
    11 U.S.C.A. § 523
    (a)(2) & (4) (West 1993 &
    Supp. 2000).     We have reviewed the parties’ briefs, the joint
    appendix, and the lower courts’ opinions and find no reversible
    error.   Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district
    court. Blum, Frank & Kamins Cos. v. Marzullo, Nos. CA-99-3801-MJG;
    AP-90-5060; AP-91-5169; BK-89-53695 (D. Md. Aug. 9, 2000). We dis-
    pense 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
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 00-2207

Citation Numbers: 11 F. App'x 138

Judges: King, Niemeyer, Per Curiam, Traxler

Filed Date: 4/24/2001

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/6/2023