
    Arlene A. SMITH-SCOTT, Debtor-Appellant, v. HOWARD BANK; U.S. Bank National Association; George W. Liebmann, Trustee, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 16-1325
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: May 31, 2016
    Decided: August 8, 2016
    Arlene A. Smith-Scott, Appellant Pro Se. George W. Liebmann, Orbie Ray Shively, Liebmann & Shively, PA, Baltimore, Maryland; Craig Burton Leavers, Hunt Valley, Maryland, for Appellees.
    Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Arlene Smith-Scott appeals the district court’s order dismissing her appeal from the bankruptcy court’s order approving the bankruptcy trustee’s motion for sale of a parcel of real property, and affirming the bankruptcy court’s order denying her motion to alter or amend the order converting her Chapter 11 bankruptcy case to one under Chapter 7. The bankruptcy trustee has moved to dismiss the appeal as moot and as barred by res judicata. We have reviewed the submissions relative to the motion to dismiss and have determined that Smith-Scott’s appeal from the order approving the sale has been rendered moot by the sale of the property to a good faith purchaser. See 11 U.S.C. § 363(b) (2012); Dev. Co. of Am. v. Adamson Co. (In re Adamson Co.), 159 F.3d 896, 897 (4th Cir. 1998) (holding that lessor’s failure to obtain stay of bankruptcy court’s order authorizing sale of debtor’s assets and assumption and assignment of debtor’s lease to a good faith purchaser rendered moot the lessor’s appeal from the authorization order). Accordingly, we grant the motion to dismiss in part and dismiss this portion of the appeal.

As to the appeal from the order denying reconsideration of the order converting the bankruptcy case to Chapter 7 from Chapter 11, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Smith-Scott v. Liebmann, No. 1:15-cv-03423-RDB (D. Md. Mar. 18, 2016). In light of this disposition, we deny Smith-Scott’s motion for a stay pending appeal and her motion to appoint a single judge for the purpose of expediting a decision on her motion for a stay. We also deny Smith-Scott’s motion for extension of time to file a reply brief. 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.

DISMISSED IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART  