[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 17-12722

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket Nos. 0:17-cv-60290-WPD; 16-bkc-24201-RBR

In re: MARTHA E. ECHEVERRY,

 Debtor.

________________________________________________________________

MARTHA E. ECHEVERRY, 

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

ROBIN R. WEINER, 

 Defendant-Appellee.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(January 23, 2018)

Before MARCUS, WILSON and JORDAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Martha Echeverry, a Chapter 13 debtor proceeding pro se, appeals the 

district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s dismissal of her bankruptcy 

Case: 17-12722 Date Filed: 01/23/2018 Page: 1 of 8 
2

case. The district court, relying on the facts as asserted in the Trustee’s district 

court brief, found that: (1) at a meeting of creditors in the bankruptcy case, the 

Trustee provided Echeverry with a list of deficiencies in her proposed Chapter 13 

Plan and other filings and informed her that the deficiencies needed to be corrected 

before a confirmation hearing that was to be held a month later; and (2) Echeverry 

did not appear at that confirmation hearing, and did not correct any of the problems 

in the Trustee’s list of deficiencies. The district court concluded that, based on

these findings, the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the 

case. On appeal, Echeverry argues that the bankruptcy court erred in dismissing 

the case: (1) without first holding a hearing; and (2) because “according to the 

docket,” the Trustee did not file a notice of deficiency or any objections to 

confirmation of her proposed Chapter 13 Plan. After careful review, we affirm.

As the second court of review of a bankruptcy court’s judgment, we 

independently examine the factual and legal determinations of the bankruptcy 

court and employ the same standards of review as the district court. In re Int’l 

Admin. Servs., Inc., 408 F.3d 689, 698 (11th Cir. 2005) (quotation omitted). 

Specifically, we review the bankruptcy court’s factual findings for clear error and 

the legal conclusions of both the bankruptcy court and the district court de novo. 

Id. We review the dismissal of a bankruptcy case “for cause” for abuse of 

discretion. In re Piazza, 719 F.3d 1253, 1271 (11th Cir. 2013) (reviewing 

Case: 17-12722 Date Filed: 01/23/2018 Page: 2 of 8 
3

dismissal of Chapter 7 case “for cause” under statute that contains similar 

operative language to the “for cause” dismissal provision in Chapter 13). The 

abuse of discretion standard allows for a “range of choice” by the lower court, so 

long as that choice does not constitute a clear error of judgment. In re Rasbury, 24 

F.3d 159, 168 (11th Cir. 1994). 

Although we liberally construe briefs filed by pro se litigants, issues not 

briefed on appeal by a pro se litigant are deemed abandoned. Timson v. Sampson, 

518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008); see also Albra v. Advan, Inc., 490 F.3d 826, 

829 (11th Cir. 2007) (holding that pro se litigants are required to conform to 

procedural rules). We’ve also held that a party fails to adequately “brief” an issue 

when she does not “plainly and prominently” raise it in her brief. Sapuppo v. 

Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 681 (11th Cir. 2014). In other words, an 

appellant abandons a claim when she either makes only passing references to it or 

raises it in a perfunctory manner without supporting arguments or authority. Id. 

When appealing a bankruptcy-court order to the district court, the appellant 

must designate the items to be included in the record on appeal, including 

transcripts of oral rulings and any transcript ordered. Fed. R. Bankr. P.

8009(a)(1)(A), (4). To challenge a finding or conclusion as unsupported by, or 

contrary to the evidence, the appellant must designate the transcript of any relevant 

testimony or exhibits as a part of the record on appeal. Id., 8009(b)(5). Similarly, 

Case: 17-12722 Date Filed: 01/23/2018 Page: 3 of 8 
4

the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure specify that if an appellant intends to 

urge on appeal that a finding or conclusion is unsupported by the evidence, the 

appellant must include in the record a transcript of all evidence relevant to that 

finding or conclusion. Fed. R. App. 10(b)(2). A pro se litigant’s pleadings are 

construed liberally, but pro se litigants must nonetheless conform to procedural 

rules, including the requirement that an appellant provide relevant transcripts for 

the record on appeal. Loren v. Sasser, 309 F.3d 1296, 1304 (11th Cir. 2002) 

(discussing the requirements of Fed. R. App. P. 10(b)(2), which has the same 

requirements as Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8009(b)(5)). We’ve explained that an appellant 

has the burden “to ensure the record on appeal is complete, and where a failure to 

discharge that burden prevents us from reviewing the district court’s decision we 

ordinarily will affirm the judgment.” Selman v. Cobb Cty. Sch. Dist., 449 F.3d 

1320, 1333 (11th Cir. 2006); see also Pensacola Motor Sales Inc. v. E. Shore 

Toyota, LLC, 684 F.3d 1211, 1224 (11th Cir. 2012). In Selman, we referred to this 

as the “absence-equals-affirmance rule.” 449 F.3d at 1333.

The Bankruptcy Code provides that, upon request by a party in interest and 

after notice and a hearing, a Chapter 13 case may be dismissed “for cause,” 

including failure to commence making timely plan payments; denial of 

confirmation of a Chapter 13 plan; and material default by the debtor of a 

confirmed plan. 11 U.S.C. § 1307(c). The Code further provides that if a debtor 

Case: 17-12722 Date Filed: 01/23/2018 Page: 4 of 8 
5

was required by applicable law to file a tax return, she must “file with appropriate 

tax authorities all tax returns for all taxable periods ending during the 4-year period 

ending on the date of the filing of the petition.” Id. § 1308(a). It requires the 

debtor to commence making Chapter 13 plan payments not later than 30 days after 

the date of the filing of the plan in the amount proposed in the plan. Id. § 

1326(a)(1)(A). The Code instructs the bankruptcy court to confirm a plan if, inter 

alia, it complies with the terms of Chapter 13, and if the debtor will be able to 

make all payments under the plan and comply with the plan. Id. § 1325(a)(1), (6). 

Finally, the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure provide that the 

“business of the” meeting of creditors “shall include the examination of the debtor 

under oath . . . .” Fed R. Bankr. P. 2003(b)(1). Any examination under oath at that 

meeting “shall be recorded verbatim,” and upon request of any entity, “the United 

States trustee shall certify and provide a copy or transcript of such recording at the 

entity’s expense.” Id., 2003(c). 

Here, Echeverry argues that the bankruptcy court erred in dismissing the 

case: (1) without first holding a hearing; and (2) because “according to the docket,” 

the Trustee did not file a notice of deficiency or any objections to confirmation of 

her proposed Chapter 13 Plan. However, Echeverry did not include in the record a 

transcript of the evidence relevant to the issues she challenges. For starters, 

Echeverry failed to order transcripts or otherwise provide a record of the 

Case: 17-12722 Date Filed: 01/23/2018 Page: 5 of 8 
6

proceedings that occurred at the confirmation hearing, and the bankruptcy court’s 

order denying confirmation and dismissing the case does not set forth the 

reasoning for its decision. Without this transcript, we are left to guess as to the 

court’s reasoning and as to what transpired at that hearing in terms of the problems 

with the proposed Chapter 13 Plan and the Trustee’s asserted deficiencies. Nor 

can we determine whether the bankruptcy court found that Echeverry received the 

Trustee’s list of deficiencies, and whether she failed to correct them. A record was 

also ostensibly created, according to the Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure

2003(b)(1), (c), at the meeting of creditors she admits she attended, yet, again, she 

failed to obtain a transcript of that proceeding as well. Echeverry does not 

expressly deny that the Trustee provided her with the list of deficiencies at that 

meeting, nor that the deficiencies were indeed present in her case. Because she

failed to order transcripts or otherwise provide a record of the proceedings that 

occurred at the meeting of creditors, or at the confirmation hearing, and records 

from those hearings are not otherwise available to us, we are unable to conduct a 

full and meaningful review of the case, and affirm under the absence-equalsaffirmance rule. Pensacola Motor Sales Inc., 684 F.3d at 1224.

In any event, Echeverry has also arguably abandoned any challenge to the 

district court’s findings. Although she asserted in her original brief to the district 

court that the “Trustee did not send any notice” of the deficiencies, she never 

Case: 17-12722 Date Filed: 01/23/2018 Page: 6 of 8 
7

replied to the Trustee’s brief nor challenged the Trustee’s assertion that the notice 

was provided to her at the hearing, and she never moved the district court to 

reconsider after it found in its order that she received the list of deficiencies. She 

now claims on appeal that the Trustee’s list or “notice” of deficiencies, “according 

to the Docket,” was never filed or “was not properly filed.” She does not, 

however, deny receiving the list at the meeting of creditors, which she admits she 

attended. She has thus abandoned any challenge to the district court’s finding that 

she received the list of deficiencies, which informed her that she needed to correct 

them prior to the confirmation hearing. Timson, 518 F.3d at 874. Because she 

never replied to the Trustee’s brief nor challenged the Trustee’s other claims, and

never moved the district court to reconsider anything, Echeverry likewise has

abandoned her challenges to the lack of notice and a hearing, and to the claims that 

she was behind in making Plan payments, failed to appear at the January 19, 2017 

confirmation hearing, failed to file tax returns, filed a certificate showing that she 

completed credit counseling after she filed her Chapter 13 petition, had calculation 

errors in her plan. 11 U.S.C. §§ 1308(a), 1325(a)(1), (6), 1326(a)(1)(A). 

For these reasons, we are compelled to conclude that the bankruptcy court 

did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the case. Notably, nothing in the record 

suggests that dismissal of the case with these deficiencies as “cause” was outside 

Case: 17-12722 Date Filed: 01/23/2018 Page: 7 of 8 
8

the range of reasonable choices. In re Rasbury, 24 F.3d at 168. Accordingly, we 

affirm.1 

AFFIRMED. 

 1 What’s more, the Bankruptcy Code provides that “an individual may not be a debtor 

under this title unless” she has, during the 180-day period ending on the date the petition was 

filed, received from an approved provider a briefing that outlines the opportunities for available 

credit counseling and assistance. 11 U.S.C. § 109(h)(1) (referencing 11 U.S.C. § 111(a)’s 

criteria for approved providers). Although we’ve not addressed, in a published opinion, the 

consequences of failing to fulfill this requirement, the Sixth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel 

has persuasively held that a putative debtor who fails to complete this requirement prior to filing 

a petition is not a debtor, and that the case is subject to dismissal. In re Ramey, 558 B.R. 160, 

163-64 (6th Cir. B.A.P. 2016) (persuasive authority). The only exceptions to this requirement 

apply (1) where the debtor, due to incapacity, disability, or active military duty, is unable to 

complete the requirement, or (2) where the debtor describes exigent circumstances that merit a 

waiver of the requirement, and states that she requested credit counseling services but was 

unable to obtain them within seven days of the request. 11 U.S.C. § 109(h)(3), (4). 

Here, Echeverry’s certificate showed that she completed her credit counseling after she 

filed her petition, and the bankruptcy clerk’s notice of deficiency, entered the same day that 

Echeverry filed her petition, clearly indicated that failure to file a certification showing 

compliance with this requirement could result in dismissal of the bankruptcy case. It is also 

worth noting that this was Echeverry’s sixth Chapter 13 filing in as many years, and that each of 

her previous five filings were also dismissed prior to confirmation. Thus, although the district 

court did not base its dismissal on this ground, the record supports the conclusion that Echeverry

failed to comply with the Bankruptcy Code’s plain language requirement that a debtor complete 

the counseling prior to the filing of the case. See Wright v. City of St. Petersburg, Fla., 833 F.3d 

1291, 1294 (11th Cir. 2016) (holding that we will affirm for any reason supported by the record,

regardless of whether it was relied upon below); see also In re Ramey, 558 B.R. at 163-64 (6th 

Cir. B.A.P. 2016).

Case: 17-12722 Date Filed: 01/23/2018 Page: 8 of 8