In re: The Disciplinary Proceeding of BENJAMIN BRANDT WASSON v. Ust - United States Trustee, Los Angeles

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: The Disciplinary Proceeding of
BENJAMIN BRANDT WASSON,
Debtor,
BENJAMIN BRANDT WASSON,
Appellant,
v.
UST - UNITED STATES TRUSTEE,
LOS ANGELES,
Appellee.
No. 12-60035
BAP No. 11-1709
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the Ninth Circuit
Bankruptcy Appellate Panel
Markell, Pappas, and Hollowell, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding
Submitted November 19, 2013**
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
FILED
DEC 09 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

Benjamin Brandt Wasson, an attorney, appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy
Appellate Panel’s (“BAP”) order dismissing as untimely his appeal from the
bankruptcy court’s order suspending him from practice for one year. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo. Bank of the West v.
Wiersma (In re Wiersma), 483 F.3d 933, 938 (9th Cir. 2007). We affirm.
The BAP properly dismissed Wasson’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction
because Wasson filed his notice of appeal more than two years after entry of the
bankruptcy court’s order. See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8002(a) (“The notice of appeal
shall be filed with the clerk within 14 days of the date of the entry of the judgment,
order, or decree appealed from.”); Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9022(a) (lack of notice of the
entry of a bankruptcy court order does not affect the time to file a notice of appeal);
In re Wiersma, 483 F.3d at 938 (“[T]he failure to timely file a notice of appeal is a
jurisdictional defect barring appellate review.” (citation and internal quotation
marks omitted)).
AFFIRMED.
12-60035 2

-- 2 of 2 --