NOT FOR PUBLICATION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 Nos. 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, 2018

**

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, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 17-60052 

sanctions against appellants. We have jurisdiction 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. 2010). 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 compensation for improper litigation tactics); see also Fed. 

R. App. P. 10(b)(2) (“If the appellant intends to urge on appeal that a finding or 
3 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 as 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 Padgett

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.