Case Name: Ryan MELCHER, Appellant, v. John W. RICHARDSON, Chapter 7 Panel Trustee, Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-03-17
Citations: 563 F. App'x 574
Docket Number: No. 12-16035
Parties: Ryan MELCHER, Appellant, v. John W. RICHARDSON, Chapter 7 Panel Trustee, Appellee.
Judges: Before: PREGERSON, LEAVY, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 563
Pages: 574–575

Head Matter:
Ryan MELCHER, Appellant, v. John W. RICHARDSON, Chapter 7 Panel Trustee, Appellee.
No. 12-16035.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 10, 2014.
Filed March 17, 2014.
Ryan Melcher, Carmel, CA, pro se.
Charles Patrick Maher, McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Appellee.
Before: PREGERSON, LEAVY, 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
Ryan Melcher appeals pro se from the district court's judgment affirming the bankruptcy court's denial of reconsideration of an order permitting Chapter 7 Trustee John W. Richardson to sell real property free and clear of liens. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review independently the bankruptcy court's decision without deference to the district court's determinations, Leichty v. Neary (In re Strand), 375 F.3d 854, 857 (9th Cir.2004), and we affirm.
The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by denying Melcher's motion for reconsideration because Melcher failed to establish a basis warranting reconsideration. See 11 U.S.C. § 363(f)(4) (explaining that a bankruptcy trustee may sell property free and clear of any interest in such property if such interest is in bona fide dispute); Fed. R. Bankr.P. 9024 (applying Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 to bankruptcy proceedings with limited exceptions); Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir.1993) (setting forth the standard of review and grounds for reconsideration under Rule 60(b)).
Meleher's contentions regarding the validity of an alleged trust agreement and whether the judgment in his state court case should be voided are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.