IN RE: Shahara KHAN, Debtor. Debra Kramer, as Trustee of the Estate of Shahara Khan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tozammel H. Mahia, Defendant-Appellant, 706 F. App'x 22

SUMMARY ORDER Defendant-Appellant Tozammel H. Ma-hia (“Mahia”) appeals the District Court’s judgment granting partial

summary judgment to Plaintiff-Appellee Debra Kramer (“Bankruptcy Trustee”) and dismissing the Bankruptcy Trustee’s other claims.

We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal. • Mahia argues that the judgment is erroneous on various grounds, including that (1) both the District Court and the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of New York lacked subject-matter jurisdiction; (2) the Bankruptcy Trustee lacked standing to bring the causes of action in this case; (3) the Bankruptcy Court was not permitted to decide this case because bankruptcy judges are not appointed in accordance with the Appointments Clause of the United States Constitution; (4) the District Court erred in concluding that the Bankruptcy Trustee’s conduct did not burden Mahia’s religious practice in such a way as to violate the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000bb to 2000bb-4; (5) the District Court failed to apply the statute of limitations to bar the Bankruptcy Trustee’s claim of constructive fraud; (6) the Bankruptcy Court failed to provide sufficient reasons for its recommendation for

summary judgment and failed to apply a clear-and-convincing-evidence standard of proof; (7) the Bankruptcy Court incorrectly proposed a finding that Debtor Shahara Khan (“Debtor”) had not received fair consideration for two property transfers at issue in the case; and (8) the Bankruptcy Court failed to “take ... into consideration” the Debtor’s purported right to a homestead exemption, Br.

Def.-Appellant 39. “We exercise plenary review over a district court’s affirmance of a bankruptcy court’s decision, reviewing de novo the bankruptcy court’s conclusion of law, and reviewing its findings of fact for clear error.” Adler v. Lehman Bros. Holdings Inc. (In re Lehman Bros. Holdings Inc.), 855 F.3d 459, 469 (2d Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). We conclude after independent review of the record that Mahia’s first, second, third, fourth, and seventh arguments are merit-less for substantially the same reasons stated in Judge Chen’s Memorandum and Order of September 30, 2015.

See Memorandum & Order at 11-20, 28-31, Kramer v. Mahia (In re Khan), No. 14-MC-01674 (PKC) (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2015), ECF No. 2. We refuse to consider Mahia’s other arguments, since “we generally do not consider arguments not raised below.” Caiola v. Citibank, N.A., N.Y., 295 F.3d 312, 327 (2d Cir. 2002). CONCLUSION We' have considered Mahia’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. We therefore AFFIRM the District Court’s judgment of . November 15, 2016. We also hereby DENY the Bankruptcy Trustee’s motion of November 8, 2017 to impose sanctions.