NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT AUG 18 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
In re: MARTIN PALOMINO and No. 09-60026
ELIZABETH PALOMINO,
BAP No. AZ-09-1128-JuDM
Debtors.
RICHARD HOYT & ASSOCIATES, MEMORANDUM *
Appellant,
v.
MARTIN PALOMINO; et al.,
Appellees.
Appeal from the Ninth Circuit
Bankruptcy Appellate Panel
Jury, Dunn, and Montali, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding
Submitted August 11, 2011 **
Before: THOMAS, SILVERMAN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Richard Hoyt & Associates (“Hoyt”) appeals from the Bankruptcy Appellate
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Panel’s (“BAP”) order dismissing Hoyt’s late-filed appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
To the extent that we have jurisdiction, it is under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review
de novo. Wiersma v. Bank of the West (In re Wiersma), 483 F.3d 933, 938 (9th
Cir. 2007). We affirm.
The BAP properly dismissed Hoyt’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction because
Hoyt failed to file a timely notice of appeal. See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8001(f)(1)
(certification for direct appeal to court of appeals not effective without timely
notice of appeal); see also In re Wiersma, 483 F.3d at 938 (“The failure to timely
file a notice of appeal is a jurisdictional defect barring appellate review.”)
(alteration, citation, and internal quotation marks omitted).
Because Hoyt’s notice of appeal to the BAP was untimely, we lack
jurisdiction to review Hoyt’s contentions as to the merits of the bankruptcy court’s
decision. See Greene v. United States (In re Souza), 795 F.2d 855, 857 (9th Cir.
1986) (noting that this court lacks jurisdiction to review the merits where the
appeal from the bankruptcy court was untimely).
Hoyt’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
2 09-60026