Case Name: IN RE: Yousif H. HALLOUM, Debtor. Yousif H. Halloum, Appellant, v. Michael G. Kasolas, Trustee, Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-04-20
Citations: 688 F. App'x 465
Docket Number: No. 14-60086
Parties: IN RE: Yousif H. HALLOUM, Debtor. Yousif H. Halloum, Appellant, v. Michael G. Kasolas, Trustee, Appellee.
Judges: Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 688
Pages: 465–466

Head Matter:
IN RE: Yousif H. HALLOUM, Debtor. Yousif H. Halloum, Appellant, v. Michael G. Kasolas, Trustee, Appellee.
No. 14-60086
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 11, 2017
Filed April 20, 2017
Yousif H. Halloum, Pro Se
Michael C. Abel, Attorney, McNutt Law Group LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Appel-lee
Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, 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
Yousif Halloum appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel's ("BAP") order dismissing as moot his appeal from the bankruptcy court's order approving a settlement agreement between Halloum's chapter 7 trustee and his secured creditor. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review for clear error factual findings about mootness and de novo legal conclusions. Rev Op Grp. v. ML Manager LLC (In re Mortgages Ltd.), 771 F.3d 1211, 1215 (9th Cir. 2014). We affirm.
The BAP properly dismissed Halloum's appeal as moot because Halloum did not object to, or take an appeal from, the bankruptcy court's order authorizing the sale of estate assets. See Motor Vehicle Casualty Co. v. Thorpe Insulation Co. (In re Thorpe Insulation Co.), 677 F.3d 869, 880-81 (9th Cir. 2012) (discussing factors to be examined when determining equitable mootness). Halloum has permitted such a comprehensive change of circumstances to occur that it is inequitable to consider the merits of the appeal. See id.
In light of our disposition, we do not consider Halloum's arguments regarding the underlying merits of the settlement agreement.
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.