Abtin Vaziri v. Cyrus Amiri

USCA4 Appeal: 25-1095 Doc: 28 Filed: 06/29/2026 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-1095 In re: ABTIN VAZIRI.

------------------------------ ABTIN VAZIRI, Debtor - Appellee, v. CYRUS AMIRI, Creditor - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Michael Stefan Nachmanoff, District Judge. (1:24-cv-00236-MSN-WEF)

Submitted: June 25, 2026 Decided: June 29, 2026

Before BENJAMIN and BERNER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Robert S. Brandt, LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT S. BRANDT, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Ashley Frances-May Morgan, ASHLEY F. MORGAN LAW, PC, Chantilly, Virginia; Daniel M. Press, CHUNG & PRESS, PC, McLean, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 25-1095 Doc: 28 Filed: 06/29/2026 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM: Cyrus Amiri appeals the district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s order confirming Abtin Vaziri’s Chapter 13 bankruptcy plan. After Amiri filed this appeal, the bankruptcy court granted the United States Trustee’s motion to dismiss the Chapter 13 case. Vaziri subsequently filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, and Amiri has filed an adversary case against Vaziri in bankruptcy court. Vaziri moves to dismiss this appeal as moot.

“A case becomes moot when the issues presented are no longer live or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.” Williams v. Ozmint, 716 F.3d 801, 809 (4th Cir. 2013) (internal citation omitted)). “A change in factual circumstances can moot a case on appeal, such as . . . when an event occurs that makes it impossible for the court to grant any effectual relief to the plaintiff.” Id. Because Vaziri’s Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceeding is no longer a live case or controversy, we cannot afford Amiri any effective relief. Accordingly, we grant Vaziri’s motion to dismiss the appeal as moot. 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