United States v. 2020-04-13 | 18-60066 | ALAN BARTLETT V. DAVID BIRDSELL | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

In re: ALAN M. BARTLETT; LUZ
MARINA BARTLETT-MORAN,

Debtors,

------------------------------

ALAN M. BARTLETT,

Appellant,

v.

DAVID A. BIRDSELL, Chapter 7 Trustee,

Appellee.

No. 18-60066

BAP No. 18-1093

MEMORANDUM
*

In re: ALAN M. BARTLETT; LUZ
MARINA BARTLETT-MORAN,

Debtors,

------------------------------

ALAN M. BARTLETT,

Appellant,

v.

No. 18-60067

BAP No. 18-1096

*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
FILED

APR 13 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 18-60066
18-60067

CITIBANK, SOUTH DAKOTA, N.A.,

Appellee.

Appeals from the Ninth Circuit
Bankruptcy Appellate Panel
Taylor, Brand, and Kurtz, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding

Submitted April 7, 2020
**

Before: TASHIMA, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

Alan M. Barlett appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s
(“BAP”) judgment dismissing as untimely his appeal from the bankruptcy court’s
judgments in two adversary proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 158(d). We review de novo. In re Delaney, 29 F.3d 516, 517-18 (9th Cir. 1994).
We affirm.
The BAP properly concluded that Alan’s notices of appeal were untimely.
See Fed. R. Bank. P. 8002(a) (providing that a notice of appeal shall be filed with
the bankruptcy clerk within 14 days of the date of entry of the judgment, order, or
decree appealed from); In re Delaney, 29 F.3d at 517-18 (“The provisions of
Bankruptcy Rule 8002 are jurisdictional; the untimely filing of a notice of appeal
deprives the appellate court of jurisdiction to review the bankruptcy court’s order.”

**
The panel unanimously concludes these cases are suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

3 18-60066
18-60067
(internal citation omitted)). We reject as meritless Alan’s contentions that the
certificates of service of the complaints in the adversary proceedings were invalid.
See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7004(b) (providing that service in bankruptcy adversary
proceedings may be made within the United States by first class mail).
Alan’s motions for oral argument (Docket Entries Nos. 6 and 13) and for
default judgment (Docket Entry No. 23) are denied.
AFFIRMED.