James Muhammad V. , 671 F. App'x 687 ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •                                                                             FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             DEC 21 2016
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    In re: JAMES KARIM MUHAMMAD,                     No. 15-60036
    AKA James Conway,
    BAP No. 15-1103
    Debtor.
    ______________________________
    MEMORANDUM*
    JAMES KARIM MUHAMMAD,
    Appellant,
    v.
    NORTH RICHMOND SENIOR
    HOUSING, INC.,
    Appellee.
    Appeal from the Ninth Circuit
    Bankruptcy Appellate Panel
    Kurtz, Jury, and Pappas 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).
    James Karim Muhammad appeals pro se from an order of the Bankruptcy
    Appellate Panel (“BAP”) dismissing his bankruptcy appeal as untimely. We have
    jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo. Delaney v. Alexander
    (In re Delaney), 
    29 F.3d 516
    , 517 (9th Cir. 1994). We affirm.
    The BAP correctly dismissed Muhammad’s appeal because Muhammad
    failed to file the notice of appeal with the bankruptcy clerk within 14 days of entry
    of the order being appealed as required by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8002(a)(1). See 11
    U.S.C. § 158(c)(2) (an appeal to the BAP or district court from a bankruptcy court
    must be taken within the time provided by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8002); Anderson v.
    Mouradick (In re Mouradick), 
    13 F.3d 326
    , 327 (9th Cir. 1994) (“The provisions
    of Bankruptcy Rule 8002 are jurisdictional . . . .”); see also Ramsey v. Ramsey (In
    re Ramsey), 
    612 F.2d 1220
    , 1223 (9th Cir. 1980) (declining to adopt a “mailbox
    rule” for Rule 8002(a) appeals).
    Muhammad’s pending motions are denied as moot.
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                    15-60036