* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determined th a t

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 97-11415

Summary Calendar

_____________________

In The Matter Of: JULIA MILLION,

Debtor.

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

JULIA MILLION,

Appellant,

versus

NICK VINCENT SALAS;

ANTHONY MICHELLE SLAYDEN,

Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:97-CV-1797-P

_________________________________________________________________

December 21, 1998

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Appellant Julia Million appeals an orde r from the district

court dismissing her appeal from the bankruptcy court for want of

jurisdiction. The district court held that Million’s appeal was

untimely under Bankr. R. 8002(a) and therefore it had no

jurisdiction to hear the case.1 Million urges several other argumen ts on appeal that she

failed to present to the district court. Because we are confident

that no miscarriage of justice will result, we decline to consider

the issues raised for the first time on appeal. L indsey v. Federal

Deposit Ins. Corp. , 960 F.2d 567, 572 (5th Cir. 1992).

2 The bankruptcy court judgment was entered on June 18, 1997.

Because ten days from the date of entry of judgment fell on a Saturday, June 28, 1997, Million had until Monday, June 30, 1997,

to file the notice of appeal. Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(a).

2 On appeal, Million contends that her notice of appeal was

timely because Bankr. R. 9006(f) extends the ten-day period of

appeal under Bankr. R. 8002(a) by three days. 1

Jurisdiction is a question of law that we review de novo. I n

re Moody , 41 F.3d 1024, 1026 (5th Cir. 1995).

After a review of the record and consideration of the briefs,

we must affirm the district court’s dismissal of Million’s appeal.

In pertinent part, Bankr. R. 8002(a) provides that “the notice

of appeal shall be filed with the clerk within 10 days of the date

of the entry of the judgment, order, or decree appealed from.” The

rule is mandatory and failure to comply deprives the district court

of jurisdiction to review the bankruptcy court’s judgment. I n re

Moody

, 41 F.3d at 1026 (citing Abraham v. Aguilar (In re Anguilar)

,

861 F.2d 873, 874 (5th Cir. 1988)). Under Bankr. R. 8002(a)

Million had until Monday, June 30, 1997, to file a timely notice of

appeal. 2 It is undisputed that Million did not file her notice of

appeal until July 1, 1997. As such, Million’s appeal was untimely.

Million’s reliance on Bankr. R. 9006(f) is misplaced.

Bankruptcy R. 9006(f) provides:3

When there is a right or requirement to do some act or

undertake some proceedings within a prescribed period

after service of a notice or other paper and the notice

or other paper is served by mail, three days shall be

added to the prescribed period.

Notwithstanding its three-day extension period, Bankr. R. 9006(f)

is “inapplica ble to the appeal proceeding proscribed in Rule

8002(a).” A rbuckle v. First National Bank of Oxford

, 988 F.2d 29,

31 (5th Cir. 1993) (citing In re Sanders

, 59 B.R. 414, 416 (D.

Mont. 1986)). Therefore, to preserve her right to file a timely

appeal, Million was required to adhere jurisdictional requirements

of Bankr. R. 8002(a). This she failed to do. The district court

did not err i n dismissing Million’s appeal for lack of

jurisdiction.

The judgment of the district court is hereby

A F F I R M E D.