T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T I n r e : ES TR EL LA AN D J AM ES KINC AI D, D eb t o rs. ES TR EL LA KI NCAI D; J AM ES KINC AI D, A p p el l an t s, v. S U S A N K . S M IT H , T rust ee , A pp el l ee . N o. 09- 60047 B A P N o . 0 9 - 1 0 7 0 - P a Ju Mo ME MOR AN DU M *

A p p e a l f r o m th e N in th C ir c u it B ankrup t cyA pp el l at e P anel P appa s , Jury , a nd M ont a l i , B a nkrupt c yJudge s , P r e s i di ng

S ubm i tt e d N ove m be r21, 2011 ** B efo re: T A S H IM A , B E R Z O N , an dT A L L M A N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. 

# FI LED NO V 29 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS09- 60047 2 E s tr e llaa n dJ a m e s K in c a idap p e a l p r o s e f r o m th e B a n k rup tc yA p p e lla te P a ne l ’ s ( “ B A P ” ) or de r s di s m i s s i ng the i rappe a l s f orl a c k of

pr os e c ut i on a nd d e n y i n g th e i rmo t i o n f

o rr e c o n s i d e r a t i o n . W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r2 8 U . S. C. § 158( d) . W e r e vi e w f

ora n abus e of

di s c r e t i on. G reco v. Stu b en b erg , 859 F . 2d 1 4 0 1 , 1 4 0 4 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 8 8 ) ( d is m is s a l f o rla c ko f

p r o s e c u tio n ) ; N

at ’ l B ank of L ong B e ac h v . D onov an (

I n r e D onov an) , 8 7 1 F. 2 d8 0 7 , 8 0 8 ( 9 th Ci r . 1 9 8 9 ) ( p e rc u r i a m) ( m o tio n f

o rr e c o n s id e r a tio n ) . W e a f f irm . T h e B A P d idn o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n b yd is m is s in g th e K in c a id s ’ ap p e a ls af t ergrant i ng an ext ensi on of t i m e t o fi l e the op eni ng bri ef , st at i ng thatno further e x te n s io n s w o u ldb e g r a n te d , a n dw a rn in g th a t n o n c o m p lian c e w o u ldr e s u lt in d is m is s a l. See G re co , 8 5 9 F .2 da t 1 4 0 4 ( th e d is tr ic t c o u rt d idn o t ab u s e its di s c r e t i on bydi s m i s s i ng a n appe a l f r om the ba nkrupt c yc ourtw he r e the appe l l a nt f a ile dto c o m p lyw ith c o u rt d e a d lin e s a f te raw a rn in g th a t f

a ilu r e to c o m p lyw o u ld re sul ti n d i sm i ss al ); s e e al s o I n r e D onov an , 87 1 F . 2d at80 8 (the sam e s t andard go verns di sm i ss al s f

or l ac k o f prose cut i on by the di stri ctcourtand the B A P ). T he B A P di d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on byde ny i ng the K i nc a i ds ’ m ot i on f or re consi dera t i on because the K i ncai ds fa i l ed t o sho w excusabl e negl ec tor any other g r o u n df o rr e lie f . See F e d . R . C iv . P . 6 0 ( b ) ( p r o v id in g g r o u n d s f o rr e lie f ) ; In re D onov an , 87 1 F . 2d at80 8 (a B A P order denyi ng a m ot i on t o rec on si der adi sm i ss al09- 60047 3 f orl a c k of

pr os e c ut i on “ i s appr opr i a t e l ya na l ogi z e d t o aR ul e 60( b) det erm i nat i on ”) . T he K i nc a i ds ’ r e m a i ni ng c ont e nt i ons a r e una va i l i ng. AF F I RME D.