In re: CHANDANA BASU v. Leonard Soloniuk, M.d.

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: CHANDANA BASU,
Debtor,
CHANDANA BASU,
Appellant,
v.
LEONARD SOLONIUK, M.D.,
Appellee.
No. 10-60043
BAP No. 10-1062
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the Ninth Circuit
Bankruptcy Appellate Panel
Hollowell, Kirscher, and Markell, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding
Submitted December 19, 2012**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Chandana Basu appeals from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s (“BAP”)
FILED
JAN 03 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-60043 2
order denying reconsideration of its order dismissing her appeal for failure to
prosecute. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review for an
abuse of discretion, Nat’l Bank of Long Beach v. Donovan (In re Donovan), 871
F.2d 807, 808 (9th Cir. 1989) (per curiam), and we affirm.
The BAP did not abuse its discretion in denying Basu’s motion for
reconsideration because Basu failed to establish grounds for such relief, and
instead, merely repeated arguments previously presented to and considered by the
BAP. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) (listing grounds for relief from judgment); Fed. R.
Bankr. P. 9024 (applying Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 to bankruptcy proceedings with
limited exceptions).
We do not address arguments raised for the first time on appeal, including
Basu’s contentions regarding the merits of the bankruptcy court’s judgment in the
underlying Chapter 7 adversary proceeding against her. See Padgett v. Wright, 587
F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).
Basu’s motion to augment the record with documents not relevant to the sole
issue properly on appeal is denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --