NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

In re: YAN SUI,

Debtor.

YAN SUI; PEI

- YU YANG,

Appellants,

v.

RICHARD A. MARSHACK,

Appellee. No. 17

- 60052

BAP No s

. 16

- 1252

16

- 1284

16

- 1310

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Taylor, Kurtz, and Faris, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding

Submitted February 13, 201 8 **

Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

Yan Sui and Pei

- Yu Yang appeal pro se from a judgment of the Bankruptcy

Appellate Panel (“BAP”) affirming the bankruptcy court’s orders granting

* 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). 

# FILED

FEB 23 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 17

- 60052

sanctions against appellants. We have jurisd iction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We

review de novo decisions of the BAP and apply the same standard of review that

the BAP applied to the bankruptcy court’s ruling. Americredit Fin. Servs., Inc. v.

Penrod (In re Penrod) , 611 F.3d 1158, 1160 (9th Cir. 201 0). We affirm.

The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by imposing non

- punitive

sanctions against appellants after finding them in civil contempt because the record

shows that appellants violated the bankruptcy court’s June 4, 2015 order

, which

appellants unsuccessfully appealed to this court. See Kismet Acquisition, LLC v.

Diaz

– Barba ( In re Icenhower

) , 755 F.3d 1130, 1138

- 39 (9th Cir . 2014) (setting

forth standard of review and stating that a bankruptcy court may hold a party in

civil contempt if the party “violated a specific and definite order of the court ”

(citation and internal quotation marks omitted))

.

Because appellants failed to provide the necessary transcripts, we are unable

to assess the validity of appellants’ challenges to the bankruptcy court’s findings of

fact and conclusions of law related to its order imposing sanctions under its

inherent authority. To the extent the record permits review, the bankruptcy court

did not abuse its discretion

. See Price v. Lehtinen (In re Lehtinen) , 564 F.3d 1052,

1058 (9th Cir. 2009) (inherent authority of bankruptcy court allows court to impose

sanctions and provide co mpensation for improper litigation tactics) ; see also Fed.

R. App. P. 10(b)(2) (“If the appellant intends to urge on appeal that a finding or3 17

- 60052

conclusion is unsupported by the evidence or is contrary to the evidence, the

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

finding or conclusion.”) ; Syncom Capital Corp. v. Wade , 924 F.2d 167, 169 (9th

Cir. 1991) ( failure to comply with Fed. R. App. P. 10(b)(2) precludes meaningful

review).

We reject a s without merit appellants’ contentions that the bankruptcy court

violated appellants’ rights to due process and free speech.

We do not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal

, or matters

not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Pa dgett

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

Appellants’ request to incorporate briefing submitted in other appeals, set

forth in the opening brief, is denied. See 9th Cir. R. 28

- 1 (b)

.

AFFIRMED.