Case Name: In re: COHEN & STEINBRECHER, a/k/a Bob M. Cohen & Associates, Law Corporation, Debtor, Cohen & Steinbrecher, a/k/a Bob M. Cohen & Associates Law Corporation, Appellant, v. Steinbrecher & Associates, Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-04-25
Citations: 62 F. App'x 193
Docket Number: No. 02-15018; BAP No. NC-01-01355-PKMa
Parties: In re: COHEN & STEINBRECHER, a/k/a Bob M. Cohen & Associates, Law Corporation, Debtor, Cohen & Steinbrecher, a/k/a Bob M. Cohen & Associates Law Corporation, Appellant, v. Steinbrecher & Associates, Appellee.
Judges: Before RYMER, KLEINFELD, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 62
Pages: 193–195

Head Matter:
In re: COHEN & STEINBRECHER, a/k/a Bob M. Cohen & Associates, Law Corporation, Debtor, Cohen & Steinbrecher, a/k/a Bob M. Cohen & Associates Law Corporation, Appellant, v. Steinbrecher & Associates, Appellee.
No. 02-15018.
BAP No. NC-01-01355-PKMa.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 11, 2003.
Decided April 25, 2003.
Before RYMER, KLEINFELD, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Bob M. Cohen & Associates Law Corporation ("Cohen") appeals from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel's (BAP) decision affirming the bankruptcy court's denial of Cohen's "Motion . For Further Enforcement of Settlement Agreement and Related Court Orders" and affirming the bankruptcy court's imposition of sanctions. Cohen does not challenge the factual findings made by the bankruptcy court.
We affirm the bankruptcy court's denial of Cohen's motion for the reasons stated by the BAP. We further hold that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by sanctioning Cohen pursuant to its inherent authority. We decline to consider Cohen's other arguments relating to sanctions that are raised for the first time on appeal. See In re Cybernetic Servs., Inc., 252 F.3d 1039, 1045 n. 3 (9th Cir.2001) (declining, in an appeal from a BAP decision, to address arguments not raised below as waived).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.