Case ID: br_508/html/0452-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

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.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 19, 2013.
    
    Filed Dec. 9, 2013.
    Benjamin Brandt Wasson, Beverly Hills, CA, pro se.
    Ron Maroko, Esquire, Trial, Office of the U.S. Trustee, Los Angeles, CA, Robert Joseph Schneider, Jr., Esquire, Trial, Office of the United States Trustee, Newark, NJ, for Appellee.
    
      Before: CANBY, TROTT, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

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), 488 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. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.