Public-Sector Solutions, Inc. v. Hunt & Associates, P.c.

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-2070
PUBLIC-SECTOR SOLUTIONS, INC.,
Debtor - Appellant,
v.
HUNT & ASSOCIATES, P.C.,
Creditor - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
James K. Bredar, Chief District Judge. (1:21-cv-02424-JKB)
Submitted: March 28, 2023 Decided: May 1, 2023
Before WYNN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Arthur G. Kahn, ARTHUR G. KAHN, PLLC, Silver Spring, Maryland, for
Appellant. Alan M. Grochal, TYDINGS & ROSENBERG LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Public-Sector Solutions, Inc. (“PSS”) appeals the district court’s order affirming the
bankruptcy court’s order denying PSS’s motion to reopen its bankruptcy case. “In
reviewing the judgment of a district court sitting in review of a bankruptcy court, we apply
the same standard of review that was applied by the district court.” Copley v. United States,
959 F.3d 118, 121 (4th Cir. 2020). Thus, “we review the bankruptcy court’s legal
conclusions de novo, its factual findings for clear error, and any discretionary decisions for
abuse of discretion.” Id.
As a threshold matter, we mostly agree with Appellee Hunt & Associates, P.C. that
PSS has forfeited appellate review by either failing to raise its arguments before the
bankruptcy court or failing to challenge the basis of the bankruptcy court’s decision. See
Hicks v. Ferreyra, 965 F.3d 302, 310 (4th Cir. 2020); Grayson O Co. v. Agadir Int’l, LLC,
856 F.3d 307, 316 (4th Cir. 2017); Rusnack v. Cardinal Bank, N.A., 695 F. App’x 704, 711
(4th Cir. 2017) (No. 16-1676) (argued but unpublished). We conclude that PSS properly
preserved its challenge to the bankruptcy court’s factual findings. But we find no clear
error in these findings.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

-- 2 of 2 --