Case Name: IN RE: YAN SUI, Debtor. Yan Sui; Pei-Yu Yang, Appellants, v. Richard A. Marshack, Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2018-02-23
Citations: 713 F. App'x 642
Docket Number: No. 17-60052
Parties: IN RE: YAN SUI, Debtor. Yan Sui; Pei-Yu Yang, Appellants, v. Richard A. Marshack, Appellee.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Bankruptcy Reporter
Volume: 582
Pages: 642–643

Head Matter:
IN RE: YAN SUI, Debtor. Yan Sui; Pei-Yu Yang, Appellants, v. Richard A. Marshack, Appellee.
No. 17-60052
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted February 13, 2018
Filed February 23, 2018
Yan Sui, Pro Se
Pei-Yu Yang, Pro Se
Jess Bressi, Dentons US LLP, Newport Beach, CA, Chad V. Haes, Attorney, Mar-shack Hays LLP, Irvine, CA, for Appellee
Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Yan Sui and Pei-Yu Yang appeal pro se from a judgment of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel ("BAP") affirming the bankruptcy court's orders granting sanctions against appellants. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo decisions of the BAP and apply the same standard of review that the BAP applied to the bankruptcy court's ruling. Americredit Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Penrod (In re Penrod), 611 F.3d 1158, 1160 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.
The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by imposing non-punitive sanctions against appellants after finding them in civil contempt because the record shows that appellants violated the bankruptcy court's June 4, 2015 order, which appellants unsuccessfully appealed to this court. See Kismet Acquisition, LLC v. Diaz-Barba (In re Icenhower), 755 F.3d 1130, 1138-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (setting forth standard of review and stating that a bankruptcy court may hold a party in civil contempt if the party "violated a specific and definite order of the court" (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
Because appellants failed to provide the necessary transcripts, we are unable to assess the validity of appellants' challenges to the bankruptcy court's findings of fact and conclusions of law related to its order imposing sanctions under its inherent authority. To the extent the record permits review, the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion. See Price v. Lehtinen (In re Lehtinen), 564 F.3d 1052, 1058 (9th Cir. 2009) (inherent authority of bankruptcy court allows court to impose sanctions and provide compensation for improper litigation tactics); see also Fed. R. App. P. 10(b)(2) ("If the appellant intends to urge on appeal that a finding or conclusion is unsupported by the evidence or is contrary to the evidence, the appellant must include in the record a transcript of all evidence relevant to that finding or conclusion."); Syncom Capital Corp. v. Wade, 924 F.2d 167, 169 (9th Cir. 1991) (failure to comply with Fed. R. App. P. 10(b)(2) precludes meaningful review).
We reject as without merit appellants' contentions that the bankruptcy court vio lated appellants' rights to due process and free speech.
We do not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal, or matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
Appellants' request to incorporate briefing submitted in other appeals, set forth in the opening brief, is denied. See 9th Cir. R. 28-l(b).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.