FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 04 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: MAURA SANTANA; TEODORO No. 13-60006
SANTANA,
BAP No. 12-1186
Debtors.
______________________________
MEMORANDUM*
ESPERANZA VENTUS BADA; LAW
OFFICES OF ESPERANZA V. BADA,
Appellants,
v.
NANCY K. CURRY, Chapter 13 Trustee;
et al.,
Appellees.
Appeal from the Ninth Circuit
Bankruptcy Appellate Panel
Hammond, Hollowell, and Markell, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding
Submitted October 25, 2016**
Before: LEAVY, SILVERMAN, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Esperanza Ventus Bada, an attorney, appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy
Appellate Panel’s (“BAP”) judgment dismissing her appeal as untimely. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo. Mantz v. Cal. State
Bd. of Equalization (In re Mantz), 343 F.3d 1207, 1211 (9th Cir. 2003). We
affirm.
The BAP properly dismissed Bada’s appeal on the basis that it lacked
jurisdiction because Bada did not appeal from the bankruptcy court’s final order
within the 14 days prescribed by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8002(a)(1). See Slimick v. Silva
(In re Slimick), 928 F.2d 304, 307 (9th Cir. 1990) (the filing of an order or
judgment after the entry of a final disposition resolving the issue at bar does not
constitute a second final disposition or extend the appeal period).
AFFIRMED.
2 13-60006