In re: GUETATCHEW FIKROU v. Rick A. Yarnall;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: GUETATCHEW FIKROU,
Debtor.
------------------------------
GUETATCHEW FIKROU, DBA Abet
Justice, LLC, a non profit organization,
AKA Gueta Fikrou, AKA Get Fikru,
Appellant,
v.
RICK A. YARNALL; et al.,
Appellees.
No. 21-60005
BAP No. 20-1117
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the Ninth Circuit
Bankruptcy Appellate Panel
Faris, Brand, and Taylor, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding
Submitted November 8, 2021**
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and MILLER, 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).
FILED
NOV 19 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 21-60005
Guetatchew Fikrou appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s
(“BAP”) January 25, 2021 post-judgment order denying reconsideration of the
BAP’s January 4, 2021 order denying rehearing. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 158(d). We review for an abuse of discretion. Sch. Dist. No. 1J,
Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993); Nat’l
Bank of Long Beach v. Donovan (In re Donovan), 871 F.2d 807, 808 (9th Cir.
1989). We affirm.
The BAP did not abuse its discretion by denying Fikrou’s motion for
reconsideration because Fikrou failed to demonstrate any basis for such relief. See
Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9024 (making Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 applicable to bankruptcy cases);
Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. Int’l Fibercom, Inc. (In re Int’l Fibercom, Inc.), 503 F.3d
933, 940-41 (9th Cir. 2007) (discussing requirements for application of “catch-all
provision” of Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6)).
We reject as without merit Fikrou’s contention that the bankruptcy court
violated his due process rights.
We do not consider the underlying bankruptcy court orders or the BAP’s
judgment affirming the bankruptcy court’s orders, because the notice of appeal was
untimely as to the BAP’s December 7, 2020 judgment. See Fed. R. App. P.
4(a)(1)(A) (notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days after entry of judgment or
order appealed from), 6(b)(1) (making Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure

-- 2 of 3 --

3 21-60005
applicable to an appeal from the BAP with listed exceptions); Stephanie-Cardona
LLC v. Smith’s Food & Drug Ctrs., Inc., 476 F.3d 701, 703 (9th Cir. 2007) (“A
timely notice of appeal is a non-waivable jurisdictional requirement.”).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal,
or arguments not adequately raised before the BAP. See Padgett v. Wright, 587
F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009); Thacker v. FCC (In re Magnacom Wireless,
LLC), 503 F.3d 984, 996 (9th Cir. 2007).
Appellant’s requests to file multiple reply briefs and to file a late reply brief
(Docket Entry Nos. 58, 60) are granted. The Clerk will file the reply briefs
submitted at Docket Entry Nos. 57, 59, and 67.
All other pending motions and requests are denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --