IN RE: Stephen LAW, Debtor. Stephen Law, Appellant, v. Alfred H. Siegel, Chapter 7 Trustee, Appellee

IN RE: Stephen LAW, Debtor. Stephen Law, Appellant, v. Alfred H. Siegel, Chapter 7 Trustee, Appellee. No. 14-60049 United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted November 16, 2016 Filed November 23, 2016 Stephen Law, Pro Se. Steven Todd Gubner, I, Esquire, Attorney, Brutzkus Gubner Rozansky Seror Weber LLP, Woodland Hills, CA, for Ap-pellee. Before: LEAVY, BERZON, 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). [MAJORITY] MEMORANDUM Chapter 7 debtor Stephen Law appeals pro se from a judgment of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (“BAP”) affirming the bankruptcy court’s order authorizing the payment of professional fees as proposed in the chapter 7 trustee’s amended final report. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo BAP decisions, and apply the same' standard of review that the BAP applied to the bankruptcy court’s ruling. Boyajian v. New Falls Corp. (In re Boyajian), 564 F.3d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir. 2009). We affirm. Law has not demonstrated that the bankruptcy court abused its discretion or otherwise identified any error in the bankruptcy court’s order approving the payment of professional fees proposed in the chapter 7 trustee’s amended final report. See In re Bennett, 298 F.3d 1059, 1063 (9th Cir. 2002) (“The bankruptcy court’s attorneys’ fee determination will only be reversed if the court abused its discretion or erroneously applied the law.”). We reject as without merit Law’s service-related contentions and his unsupported allegations of wrongdoing on the part of the trustee and the trustee’s counsel. We do not consider Law’s contentions related to a separate appeal. 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). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.