In re: Scat, Incorporated

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-1434
In Re: SCAT, INCORPORATED,
Debtor.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GARY IVAN TERRY,
Party in Interest - Appellant,
versus
SARAH F. SPARROW,
Trustee - Appellee.
No. 05-1435
In Re: SCAT, INCORPORATED,
Debtor.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GARY IVAN TERRY,
Party in Interest - Appellant,
versus
SARAH F. SPARROW,
Trustee - Appellee.

-- 1 of 3 --

- 2 -
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
District Judge. (CA-04-432-1; CA-04-742-1; BK-01-11367)
Submitted: March 30, 2006 Decided: April 5, 2006
Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gary Ivan Terry, Appellant Pro Se. Sarah Flintom Sparrow, Cynthia
Munk Swindlehurst, TUGGLE, DUGGINS & MESCHAN, PA, Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 2 of 3 --

- 3 -
PER CURIAM:
Gary Ivan Terry seeks to appeal from the district court’s
orders dismissing his appeals from the bankruptcy court’s orders
approving the settlement of a claim of SCAT Inc.’s bankruptcy
estate, and denying his motion to vacate the conversion of SCAT,
Inc.’s bankruptcy case from Chapter 11 to Chapter 7. The
bankruptcy court denied the motions and the district court
dismissed the appeals because they were not filed by a licensed
attorney. We have reviewed the records in these appeals and find
no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in
forma pauperis and dismiss the appeals for the reasons stated by
the district court. See Terry v. Sparrow, Nos. CA-04-432-1; CA-04-
742-1; BK-01-11367 (M.D.N.C. filed Mar. 30, 2005; entered Mar. 31,
2005 & Apr. 22, 2005). Additionally, we deny Terry’s motions for
a rehearing of the denial of his motion to disqualify counsel for
the Appellee, for sanctions, for appointment of counsel, for review
under the Administrative Procedures Act of Appellee’s informal
brief, and to expedite oral argument. We dispense 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.
DISMISSED

-- 3 of 3 --