William Hayes Wyttenbach appeals an order affirming the bankruptcy court’s “Order Striking Pleadings and Retroactively Annulling Automatic Stay.” The bankruptcy court held that Wyttenbach was ineligible to be a debtor because he did not comply with the credit counseling requirements in 11 U.S.C. § 109(h). Wyt-tenbach appealed to the Southern District of Texas but neither disputed that he failed to fulfill the credit counseling requirements nor contended that the bankruptcy court’s reliance on 11 U.S.C. § 109(h) was in error. Instead, Wytten-bach challenged the bankruptcy court’s order only on the grounds that he filed his chapter 7 petition as a “man,” not a “trust” — grounds upon which the bankruptcy court did not rely. In his current brief, Wyttenbach does not assert that the lower court’s reliance on 11 U.S.C. § 109(h) was improper; he again argues only that the lower courts misidentified him as a “trust” rather than a “man.” We conclude that the district court did not err in affirming the bankruptcy court’s order.

AFFIRMED.