In re: Fred Yen Ming Chu; Meiyu Chu

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-1751
In re: FRED YEN MING CHU; MEIYU CHU,
Debtors.
----------------------------------------
FU QUAN LI,
Creditor - Appellant,
FRED YEN MING CHU; MEIYU CHU,
Debtors - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Paula Xinis, District Judge. (8:21-cv-02717-PX; 8:21-cv-02487-PX)
Submitted: March 21, 2023 Decided: March 23, 2023
Before WYNN and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed in part, dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: John Christopher Belcher, North Beach, Maryland, for Appellant. Raymond
Yu, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Fu Quan Li seeks to appeal the district court’s order: (1) denying his motion for
leave to file an interlocutory appeal from the bankruptcy court’s order reopening the
Debtors’ bankruptcy case, and (2) vacating the bankruptcy court’s order granting the
Debtors’ motion to avoid Li’s judicial lien and remanding to the bankruptcy court for
further proceedings.
With respect to the district court’s denial of leave to file an interlocutory appeal, we
have reviewed the record on appeal and the arguments of the parties and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we affirm this portion of the district court’s order. Li v. Chu, Nos.
8:21-cv-02717-PX; 8:21-cv-02487-PX (D. Md. June 13, 2022).
We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Li’s appeal from the portion of the district court’s
order vacating the bankruptcy court’s decision and remanding for further proceedings.
This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and certain
interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v.
Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The order Li seeks to appeal
is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we
dismiss this portion of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We deny the motion for leave to
file a supplemental appendix, and 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 IN PART,
DISMISSED IN PART

-- 2 of 2 --