FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 23 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: JOHN ANTHONY SALOMON, No. 14-60032
Debtor, BAP No. 13-1181
______________________________
MATTHEW TYE, MEMORANDUM*
Appellant,
v.
JOHN ANTHONY SALOMON,
Appellee.
Appeal from the Ninth Circuit
Bankruptcy Appellate Panel
Kirscher, Dunn, and Jury, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding
Submitted December 14, 2016**
Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, 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).
Matthew Tye appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s
(“BAP”) decision affirming the bankruptcy court’s order denying his motion to
extend time to file a notice of appeal. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 158(d). We independently review the bankruptcy court’s decision without
deference to the BAP. Turtle Rock Meadows Homeowners Ass’n v. Slyman (In re
Slyman), 234 F.3d 1081, 1085 (9th Cir. 2000). We review for abuse of discretion a
decision to grant or deny a motion for an extension of time to file a notice of
appeal. Pincay v. Andrews, 389 F.3d 853, 858 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.
The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in denying Tye’s motion to
extend time to file his notice of appeal, where the bankruptcy court applied the
correct legal standard to well-supported findings of fact in determining that Tye
failed to show excusable neglect. See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8002(d)(1)(B) (time to file
a notice of appeal may be extended upon a showing of excusable neglect); Pioneer
Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S. 380, 395 (1993) (an
excusable neglect determination must take into account “all relevant circumstances
surrounding the party’s omission,” including: (1) the danger of prejudice to the
debtor; (2) the length of the delay and its potential impact on judicial proceedings;
(3) the reason for the delay, including whether it was within the reasonable control
of the movant; and (4) whether the movant acted in good faith.). Contrary to Tye’s
2 14-60032
contentions, the bankruptcy court did not disregard his reasons for the delay in
filing his notice of appeal.
We reject Tye’s contentions that the bankruptcy court misstated the record.
AFFIRMED.
3 14-60032