In Re: LEONARD SUSTAITA, JR. v. UNITED STATES TRUSTEE, PHOENIX; EDWARD J. MANEY, Trustee; RUSSELL A. BROWN, Trustee

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In Re: LEONARD SUSTAITA, JR.,
Debtor.
RICHARD S. BERRY,
Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES TRUSTEE,
PHOENIX; EDWARD J. MANEY,
Trustee; RUSSELL A. BROWN, Trustee,
Appellees.
No. 10-60039
BAP No. AZ 09-1350
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel
of the Ninth Circuit
Meredith A. Jury, Bankruptcy Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted November 16, 2011
San Francisco, California
FILED
NOV 29 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

The Honorable Donald E. Walter, Senior District Judge for the U.S.**
District Court for Western Louisiana, sitting by designation.
2
Before: NOONAN and BEA, Circuit Judges, and WALTER, Senior District
Judge.**
Richard S. Berry appeals the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s
opinion affirming the Arizona Bankruptcy Court’s Order Imposing Sanctions and
an Injunction in all respects except one civil fine that plays no role in this appeal.
The district court found that adequate process was afforded to Berry. The
trustees presented ample evidence of mailing notices and other papers to Berry at
his residential and business addresses. Berry did not offer facts, evidence, or case
law to support his contentions that he did not receive these mailings. The BAP
affirmed, and we do not disturb this holding.
The BAP held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying
Berry’s motion to continue the evidentiary hearing. The BAP ruled that Berry had
ample time to prepare, but he was not diligent, and a continuance would have
inconvenienced the court, witnesses, and trustees. Especially since Berry did not
appear at the hearing to argue his motion, though by his own admission he knew of
it nine to ten days ahead, we see no abuse of discretion in the bankruptcy court’s
actions and we affirm the BAP’s ruling on this issue.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by not recusing itself.
Absent evidence of some extrajudicial source of bias or prejudice, a demand for
recusal must be accompanied by evidence of favoritism or prejudice so pronounced
that it creates the appearance of partiality. Liteky v. U.S., 510 U.S. 540, 554-55
(1994). Berry presents no case law in support of his contentions, and the facts he
alleges to support his bias claim would not cause a fully-informed and objective
observer to see the bankruptcy court as anything but reasonable. We affirm the
BAP’s rejection of Berry’s arguments for recusal.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --