NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

In the Matter of: PELI PO POVICH HUNT,

Debtor.

______________________________ PELI POPOVICH HUNT ; 2007 Restated Robert and Peli Hunt Living Trust
,

Appellant,

v.
ELISSA D. MILLER, Chapter 7 Trustee; et al.,

Appellees. Nos. 14

- 56390 14

- 56392 15

- 55619

D.C. No. 2:12

- cv

- 08439

- MMM

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Margaret M. Morrow, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 26, 2017 **

Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Peli Popovich Hunt appeals pro se from the district court’s order affirming

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

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes th ese case s is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

JUL 5 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 14

- 56390

the bankruptcy court ’s orders granting the chapter 7 trustee’s motion to sell real
property and overruling Hunt’s objection to a proof of claim filed in her

bankruptcy case . We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § § 158(d) and 1291 . We

review de novo the district court’s deci sion on appeal from the bankruptcy court

and appl y the same standards of review applied by the district court. In re Thorpe

Insulation Co. , 677 F.3d 869, 879 (9th Cir. 2012 )

. The bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to approve the sale of the real property

b ecause an order approving the sale of estate property is enumerated as a core

proceeding that bankruptcy judges are empowered to hear and determine. See 11

U.S.C. § 157(b). Hunt’s interest in the real property at issue became property of

the bankruptcy estate upon Hunt’s filing of a bankruptcy petition

. See 11 U.S.C.
§ 541(a)(1); Turner v. Cook , 362 F.3d 1219, 1225

- 26 (9th Cir. 2004) (all legal or

equitable interests of a debtor in property become prop erty of the bankruptcy estate

upon the commencement of a bankruptcy case).

Because there are no exceptional circumstances indicating that this court

should consider arguments not raise d on appeal to the district court, we do not

consider Hunt ’s arguments challeng ing the bankruptcy court’s order overruling her

objection to the proof of claim

. See Burnett v. Resurgent Capital Servs. ( In re

Burnett ) , 435 F.3d 971, 975

- 76 (9th Cir. 2006)

. Hunt’s pro se appeal of the bankruptcy court’s order in her capacity as the3 14

- 56390

trustee of a trust is dismissed b ecause Hunt, as a non

- attorney, “has no authority to
appear as an attorney for others than [her]self.” Johns v. County of San Diego , 114
F.3d 874, 877 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting C.E. Pope Equity Trust v. United States
, 818 F.2d 696, 697

- 98 (9th Cir. 1987 ) )

. We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued

in the opening brief or arguments raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v.

Wright , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

All pe nding motions are denied.

Appeal Nos. 14

- 5639 0 , 15

- 55619: AFFIRMED.

Appeal No. 14

- 56392: DISMISSED.