NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

In re: GUETATCHEW FIKROU,

Debtor

.

------------------------------
GUETATCHEW FIKROU, DBA Abet Justice, LLC, a non profit organization, AKA Gueta Fikrou, AKA Get Fikru,

Appellant,

v.
RICK A. YARNALL; et al.,

Appellees. No. 21

- 60005

BAP No. 20

- 1117

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Faris, Brand, and Taylor, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding

Submitted November 8, 2021 * *

Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.

* 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

NOV 19 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 21

- 60005

Guetatchew Fikrou appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s
(“BAP”) January 25, 2021 post

- judgment order denying recons ideration of the

BAP’s January 4, 2021 order denying rehearing. We have jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. § 158(d). We review for an abuse of discretion. Sch. Dist. No. 1J,

Multnomah C

ounty , Or. v. ACandS, Inc. , 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993) ; Nat’l

Bank of Long Beach v. Donovan (In re Donovan) , 871 F.2d 807, 808 (9th Cir.

1989)

. We affirm.

The BAP did not abuse its discretion by denying Fikrou’s motion for

reconsideration because Fikrou failed to demonstrate any basis for such relief. See
Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9024 (making Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 applicable to bankruptcy cases);
Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. Int’l Fibercom, Inc. (In re Int’l Fibercom, Inc.) , 503 F.3d

933, 9 40

- 41 (9th Cir. 2007) (discussing requirements for application of “catch

- all
provision” of Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6) )

. We reject as without merit Fikrou’s contention that the bankruptcy court

violated his due process rights.

We do not consider the underlying ban kruptcy court orders or the BAP’s

judgment affirming the bankruptcy court’s orders, because the notice of appeal wa s
untimely as to the BAP’s December 7 , 2020 judgment

. See Fed. R. App. P.

4(a)(1)(A) (notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days after en try of judgment or

order appealed from), 6(b)(1) ( making Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure3 21

- 60005

applicable to an appeal from the BA P with listed exceptions ) ; Stephanie

- Cardona
LLC v. Smith’s Food & Drug Ctrs., Inc. , 476 F.3d 701, 703 (9th Cir. 2007) (“A

time ly notice of appeal is a non

- waivable jurisdictional requirement.”).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued

in the opening brief, arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal,

or arguments not adequate ly raised before the BAP. See Padgett v. Wright , 587
F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) ; Thacker v. FCC (In re Magnacom Wireless,

LLC) , 503 F.3d 984, 996 (9th Cir. 2007).
Appellant’s request s to file multiple reply briefs and to file a late reply brief

(Docket Entry Nos. 58, 60) are granted. The Clerk will file the reply briefs

submitted at Docket Entry Nos. 57, 59, and 67

. All other pending motions and requests are denied.

AFFIRMED

.