Case Name: In re: Melody L. LARK, Debtor. Melody L. Lark, Appellant, v. Board of Trustees of the California State University Office of the General Counsel, Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-10-06
Citations: 452 F. App'x 770
Docket Number: No. 10-60020
Parties: In re: Melody L. LARK, Debtor. Melody L. Lark, Appellant, v. Board of Trustees of the California State University Office of the General Counsel, Appellee.
Judges: Before: SILVERMAN, W. FLETCHER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 452
Pages: 770–770

Head Matter:
In re: Melody L. LARK, Debtor. Melody L. Lark, Appellant, v. Board of Trustees of the California State University Office of the General Counsel, Appellee.
No. 10-60020.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 27, 2011.
Filed Oct. 6, 2011.
Melody L. Lark, Chapel Hill, NC, pro se.
Christine Helwick, Esquire, General Counsel, California State University, Office of General Counsel, Lorena C. Penalo-za, I, Esquire, Litigation Counsel, Long Beach, CA, for Appellee.
Before: SILVERMAN, W. FLETCHER, 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
Melody L. Lark appeals pro se from the decision of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel affirming the bankruptcy court's determination of the non-dischargeability of Lark's student loans under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo, Rifino v. United States (In re Rifino), 245 F.3d 1083, 1087 (9th Cir.2001), and we dismiss.
We cannot review Lark's challenge to the bankruptcy court's oral determination of the non-dischargeability of her student loans because Lark failed to include the relevant transcripts in the record on appeal as required by Fed. R.App. P. 10(b)(2). See Syncom Capital Corp. v. Wade, 924 F.2d 167, 169-70 (9th Cir.1991) (per curiam) (dismissing appeal for appellant's failure to provide a transcript).
DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.