FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit

AUG 11 2000

PATRICK FISHER
Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

IN RE:  MONUMENT GUN SHOP, INC.,

		Debtor,

PAUL T. GEFREH, Trustee for the Estate of Monument Gun Shop, Inc.

		Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

SANFORD SCHUPPER,

		Defendant-Appellant.	

No. 99-1497
(D.C. No. 98-N-2288)
(D. Colo.)	

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before TACHA, PORFILIO, and EBEL, Circuit Judges.

	After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral argument.  See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G).  The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.  
	This appeal has its origins in an adversary proceeding in bankruptcy.  The debtor, Monument Gun Shop, Inc., filed a voluntary petition under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code, which was converted to a Chapter 7 proceeding.  The Chapter 7 Trustee filed an adversary proceeding against plaintiff Sanford Schupper, who was the president, a director, an insider, and the person in control of the debtor.  In the adversary proceeding, the Trustee sought to:  recover from plaintiff for fraudulent transfers, conversion, and/or wrongful dissipation of assets; hold plaintiff liable for misuse of the debtor’s assets; and, finally, pierce the corporate veil of the debtor, thereby holding plaintiff liable for the corporate debtor’s debts.  The bankruptcy court entered judgment in favor of the Trustee for fraudulent transfers, fraudulent conveyances, and holding plaintiff liable for debtor’s debts.
	Plaintiff appealed, and the district court affirmed the bankruptcy court’s decision.  Plaintiff now appeals to this court.  In reviewing the district court’s decision affirming the bankruptcy court, we apply the same standards as did the district court.  See Foster v. Hill (In re Foster), 188 F.3d 1259, 1264 (10th Cir. 1999).  “Thus, we review de novo the legal decisions of the bankruptcy and district courts,” and “we review the bankruptcy court’s factual findings for clear error.”  Yellow Cab Coop. Ass’n v. Metro Taxi, Inc. (In re Yellow Cab Coop. Ass’n), 132 F.3d 591, 596 (10th Cir. 1997).
	Plaintiff argues two points of alleged error:  (1) the bankruptcy court erred in conducting the adversary proceeding trial before the criminal proceedings against him were completed, thereby violating his Fifth Amendment rights; and (2) the bankruptcy court erred in allowing the Trustee to pursue a claim to pierce the corporate veil of the debtor and hold plaintiff liable for the corporate debts.  We find no error by the district court on the record before us, and, consequently, we AFFIRM.

				Entered for the Court

				John C. Porfilio
				Circuit Judge