In re: BOOKER THEODORE WADE, Jr. v. Arlene Stevens

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: BOOKER THEODORE WADE, Jr.,
Debtor.
______________________________
BOOKER THEODORE WADE, Jr., AKA
Booker T. Wade, Jr.,
Appellant,
v.
ARLENE STEVENS,
Appellee.
No. 15-60080
BAP No. 15-1031
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the Ninth Circuit
Bankruptcy Appellate Panel
Dunn, Jury, and Taylor, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding
Submitted December 14, 2016**
Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
FILED
DEC 21 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 3 --

Booker Theodore Wade, Jr., appeals pro se from a judgment of the
Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (“BAP”) affirming the bankruptcy court’s order
denying in part Wade’s motion “for order setting apart exemption.” We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo BAP decisions, and
apply the same standard of review that the BAP applied to the bankruptcy court’s
ruling. Boyajian v. New Falls Corp. (In re Boyajian), 564 F.3d 1088, 1090 (9th
Cir. 2009). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record. Shanks v.
Dressel, 540 F.3d 1082, 1086 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.
The bankruptcy court properly denied Wade’s request for an order declaring
that his exemptions protected property unrelated to the bankruptcy estate. The
bankruptcy court lacked jurisdiction to grant the relief because its ruling would not
impact the bankruptcy estate. See 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1), (c)(1) (bankruptcy court
jurisdiction is limited to “cases under title 11 and all core proceedings arising
under title 11, or arising in a case under title 11” as well as non-core proceedings
that are “otherwise related to a case under title 11”); see also Fietz v. Great W.
Savings (In re Fietz), 852 F.2d 455, 457 (9th Cir. 1988) (the “related to” test is
“whether the outcome of the proceeding could conceivably have any effect on the
estate being administered in bankruptcy” (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted)).
15-60080 2

-- 2 of 3 --

We do not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal. See
Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
15-60080 3

-- 3 of 3 --