1 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 26, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 06-20173

Summary Calendar

_____________________

In The Matter Of: BAQAR SHAH,

Debtor.

-------------------------------

MHENDRA R. MEHTA,

Appellant,

versus

KENNETH HAVIS, Chapter 7 Trustee,

Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division

C.A. No. H-05-2456

_________________________________________________________________

Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:1

Mhendra R. Mehta appeals the district court’s dismissal of his

appeal of the bankruptcy court’s order that approved a compromise

between the trustee and multiple parties that had purchased real

property from the Debtor prior to the bankruptcy filing. The

district court dismissed Mehta’s appeal because he failed to file

a brief with the district court within the time specified in

Bankruptcy Rule 8009(a)(1) -- or in the four months that followed.
2

In bankruptcy cases, we review actions taken by the district court

in its appellate role for abuse of discretion. In re CPDC Inc.,

221 F.3d 693, 698 (5th Cir. 2000).

The appeal before the district court arose out of a compromise

between the bankruptcy trustee and several parties who had

purchased real property from the debtor prior to his filing of a

voluntary Chapter 7 petition for relief on February 6, 2001. The

trustee filed a motion with the bankruptcy court to approve the

compromise on July 8, 2003. After an evidentiary hearing, in which

Mehta participated, the compromise was approved by the bankruptcy

court. Mehta filed two motions to reconsider, both of which were

denied. The order was finalized on June 6, 2005 and the compromise

has since been fully consummated. Mehta’s appeal to the district

court was docketed on July 15, 2005. Under Bankruptcy Rule

8009(a)(1), Mehta’s brief was due fifteen days later. On December

1, 2005, some four months after the due date, still having received

no brief nor any request for an extension, the district court

entered an order dismissing Mehta’s appeal. Mehta then filed a

motion to vacate the order and reinstate his appeal; yet, he

provided no reasonable explanation for his failure to file a brief.

The district court denied the motion. Mehta has now appealed to

this court, but again has not provided any justification for his

complete failure to file a brief. Under these circumstances, the
2 We note that another panel of this court was recently

presented with facts involving Mehta that are nearly identical to

those presented here. In re Shah, No. 06-20161, 2006 WL 2683386

(5th Cir. 2006) (Slip Copy). In that case, Mehta appealed an order

of the bankruptcy court finding him in civil contempt and

sanctioning him. Mehta failed to file a brief in that case and the

district court dismissed his appeal. This court affirmed, holding

that “[g]iven the history of Mehta’s refusal to obey court orders,

his delaying tactics, and missed deadlines, the district court did

not err in dismissing this appeal.” Id. at *1. 

3

district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Mehta’s

appeal.2

Mehta also appeals the district court’s order striking certain

record designations on appeal. It is uncontested that the

documents that Mehta sought to designate were not introduced as

evidence before the bankruptcy court. Mehta does not offer reasons

for his failure to provide these documents in the bankruptcy

hearing, nor does he offer any explanation as to how his case is

prejudiced by their exclusion. In short, the district court did

not err in refusing to permit Mehta to designate documents for

appellate review that were never considered by the bankruptcy

court.

Finally, in his reply brief, Mehta challenges the merits of

the bankruptcy court’s order, arguing that the court lacked subject

matter jurisdiction to approve this compromise. Not only are the

merits of the order not before us, Mehta’s untimely argument has no

merit.

For the foregoing reasons, the order of the district court

dismissing Mehta’s appeal is
4

AFFIRMED.