CLD

- 154 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________ No. 20

- 3000

___________ In re: CHERYL ACKERMAN , Appellant

____________________________________ On Appeal from the U nited State s District Court for the District of N ew Jersey (D.C. Civil No. 2-19- cv- 19526) District Ju dge: Honorable Kevin McNulty

________ ____________________________ Submitted for Po ssible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LA R 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 April 15, 2021 Before: RESTREPO, MATEY and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed April 29, 202 1 )

_________ OPINION *

_________ PER CURIAM Cheryl Ackerman is the debtor i n a C hapter 7 involuntary bankru ptcy proceeding in
t he United States Bank ruptcy Court for the Di strict of New Jersey

. O n November 8, 2018, Ackerman a nd the tru stee execute d a Stipul ation and Consent Or der in whi ch: (1) the

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full C ourt and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent.2

trustee consented to allow a homestead exemption on Ackerman’s residence; (2) Ackerman
and the trustee exchanged releases of claims; and (3) Ackerman agreed not to file any further motions, appeals, adversary proceedings , or complaints related to the bankruptcy

case. The Bankruptcy Court entered a final decree closing Ackerman’s case on July 18,
2019. On September 17, 2019, Ackerman filed a notice of appeal in the Bankruptcy Court. She stated that she wis hed to “ reopen” her case and be awarded damages. Al though she did not identify which order she sought to appeal, she attached a copy of the Stipulation and Consent Order. She later filed a “Designation of Record on Appeal” in accordance with Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Proceedings 8009. Instead of identifying an underlying Bankruptcy Court order , however, Ackerman indicated that she was seeking review of a judgment entered against her in the Superior Court of New Jersey. The District Court dismissed th e appeal

. The court concluded that: (1) Ackerman
f a iled to identify the order on appeal , see Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8003, and failed to designate the bankruptcy court record, see Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8009 ; and (2) her appeal was barred by the terms of the Stipula tion and Consent Order. 1 Ackerman sought reconsideration, but the District Court denied relief. Ackerman appealed.

1 The District Court noted that Ackerman m ay have intended to appeal from the Bankruptcy Court’s October 25, 2019 order denying a motion to reopen that she filed on September 17, 2019, but the operative notice of appeal was filed well before that order was entered.3

W e have jurisdiction over the final decision that the District Court rendered on Ackerman’ s appeal from the Bankruptcy Court. 28 U.S.C. § 158(d)(1). Our authority includes reviewing whether the District Court ’ s own exercise of jurisdiction, per § 158(a),
was proper. See Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp. , 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006)

. We may take summary action if it appears that no substantial question is presented on appeal. See 3d Cir. L

. A

. R

. 27.4; 3d Cir. I.O.P. 10.6.
We will vacate the District Court’s judgment because the District Court lacked jurisdiction over Ackerman’s appeal

. First, t o the extent that Ackerman sought review of the November 8, 2018 Stipulation and Consent Order , and assuming without deciding that th at order was otherwise appealable, Ackerman ’s September 17, 2019 notice of appeal was untimely. See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8002(a)(1) (providing that a n appeal from a bankruptcy court’s order must be filed within fourteen days after the entry of the order being appealed ) ; see also 28 U.S.C. § 158(c)(2) (providing that an appeal from a bankruptcy court must be taken in the time provided by Rule 8002 ). Second, t o the extent that the September 17, 2019 notice of appeal c an b e construed as challenging the July 18, 2019 final decree

— or a preceding o rder made reviewable by the decree

— it was likewise untimely. Accordingly, the District Court lacked jurisdiction over Ackerman’s appeal from the bankruptcy proceedings. See In re C aterbone , 640 F.3d 108, 11 0 (3d Cir. 2011) (stating that t he fourteen

- day time period for filing a bankruptcy appeal is mandatory and jurisdictional ). Lastly , to the extent that Ackerman sought review of a judgment entered against her in the Superior Court of New Jersey , the District Court clearly lacked jurisdiction to review4

such judgment

. See District of Columbia Ct. of Appeals v. Feldman , 460 U.S. 462, 482 (1983) (“[A] United States District Court has no authority to review final judgment s of a state court in judicial proceedings.”). Accordingly, we will vacate the District Court’s judgment and remand the matter to the District Court with instructions to dismiss the appeal from the Bankruptcy Court proceedings for lack of jurisdiction

. We note that we have considered all of Ackerman’s submissions, and her arguments therein do not change our disposition of the app eal. The motion for appointment of counsel is denied.