NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 26 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: MINON MILLER, No. 16-60087
Debtor. BAP No. 15-1328
______________________________
MINON MILLER, MEMORANDUM*
Appellant,
v.
EDWARD GILLIAM,
Appellee.
Appeal from the Ninth Circuit
Bankruptcy Appellate Panel
Kirscher, Taylor, and Kurtz, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding
Submitted December 18, 2017**
Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Chapter 7 debtor Minon Miller appeals pro se from the judgment of the
Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (“BAP”) affirming the bankruptcy court’s order
*
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).
dismissing Miller’s bankruptcy case. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 158(d). We review de novo BAP decisions, and apply the same standard of
review that the BAP applied to the bankruptcy court’s ruling. Boyajian v. New
Falls Corp. (In re Boyajian), 564 F.3d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir. 2009). We affirm.
The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Miller’s
chapter 7 petition because the record supports the bankruptcy court’s extensive
findings of abuse and bad faith. See 11 U.S.C. §§ 707(b)(1), (b)(3)(A); Price v.
U.S. Trustee (In re Price), 353 F.3d 1135, 1138 (9th Cir. 2004) (reviewing for
clear error a bankruptcy court’s factual findings and for an abuse of discretion its
decision to dismiss a chapter 7 bankruptcy petition).
To the extent Miller argues that the bankruptcy court violated due process by
considering any of Gilliam’s motions, we reject the contention because the record
shows that the bankruptcy court provided Miller with adequate opportunity to
respond and be heard.
We reject as without merit Miller’s contentions that the bankruptcy judge
should have recused himself.
We do not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal or matters
not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett
v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
2 16-60087