PER CURIAM. Upon a consideration of the facts as disclosed by the record in this case, this court is of opinion that the District Court was correct in finding (1) “Subsection (
s) does not authorize the court to grant an extension of time arbitrarily”; (2) “The debtor’s offer of composition and extension was not made in good faith as that term is used in the statute”; and that the court did not err in its order dismissing the petition of petitioner in that court, appellant here. In re Borgelt, 7 Cir., 79 F.2d 929; Steverson v. Clark, 4 Cir., 86 F.2d 330; In re Reichert, D.C., 13 F.Supp. 1, 4, 5; In re Schaeffer, D.C., 14 F.Supp. 807; In re Byrd, D.C., 15 F.Supp. 453; In re Wylie, D.C., 16 F.Supp. 193, 194. All, among others, cited in footnote 6, in Wright v.
Vinton Mountain Trust Bank, 300 U.S. 440, 462-463, 57 S.Ct. 556, 562, 81 L.Ed. 736. The order of the District Court is affirmed.