United States v. 2005-09-07 | 03-16067 | United States Trustee William T. Neary Vkeravision, Inc. |…

FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
 UNITED STATES TRUSTEE, William No. 03-16067
T. Neary, D.C. No. Appellant, CV-03-00210-CRB v. JUDGMENT
KERAVISION, INC., ORDER
Debtor-Appellee. 
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Charles R. Breyer, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted
February 9, 2005—San Francisco, California
Filed September 7, 2005
Before: J. Clifford Wallace, Johnnie B. Rawlinson, and
Carlos T. Bea, Circuit Judges.
COUNSEL
Eric D. Miller (briefed and argued), and Robert M. Loeb
(briefed), United States Department of Justice, Washington,
D.C., for the appellant.
Peter M. Gilhuly (briefed and argued), Kathryn M. Davis
(briefed), and Eric D. Brown (briefed), Latham & Watkins
LLP, Los Angeles, California, for the appellee.
12515

-- 1 of 4 --

ORDER
We affirm the judgment entered by the district court for the
reasons stated in its opinion approving the appointment of the
law firm. See In re Keravision, Inc., 273 B.R. 614 (N.D. Cal.
2002).1 The trustee did not raise the rules of professional
responsibility in challenging the law firm’s appointment
before the district court. See id. at 618. Therefore, we decline
to address that issue on appeal. See United States v. Alisal
Water Corp., 370 F.3d 915, 923 (9th Cir. 2004).
AFFIRMED.
1We have jurisdiction over this appeal because the order awarding attor-
neys’ fees is a final determination of the payment to be distributed to
Latham from the estate. See Yermakov v. Fitzsimmons (In re Yermakov),
718 F.2d 1465, 1469 (9th Cir. 1983).
12516 UNITED STATES TRUSTEE v. KERAVISION, INC.

-- 2 of 4 --

-- 3 of 4 --

PRINTED FOR
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE—U.S. COURTS
BY THOMSON/WEST—SAN FRANCISCO
The summary, which does not constitute a part of the opinion of the court, is copyrighted
© 2005 Thomson/West.

-- 4 of 4 --