IN RE: Amr MOHSEN, Debtor. Amr Mohsen, Appellant, v. Carol Wu, Appellee

IN RE: Amr MOHSEN, Debtor. Amr Mohsen, Appellant, v. Carol Wu, Appellee. No. 15-60071 United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted August 9, 2017 Filed August 15, 2017 Amr Mohsen, Pro Se Elizabeth Berke-Dreyfuss, Attorney, Mark S. Bostick, Esquire, Attorney, Wen-del, Rosen, Black & Dean LLP, Oakland, CA, for Appellee Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, 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 Amr Mohsen appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s (“BAP”) order dismissing Moh-sen’s appeal for lack of prosecution. We review de novo our own jurisdiction. Silver Sage Partners, Ltd. v. City of Desert Hot Springs (In re City of Desert Hot Springs), 339 F.3d 782, 787 (9th Cir. 2003). We dismiss for lack of appellate jurisdiction. The bankruptcy court properly certified its March 25, 2014 order as final under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) (“Rule 54(b)”). See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7054(a) (applying Rule 64(b) to adversary proceedings); Ariz. State Carpenters Pension Tr. Fund v. Miller, 938 F.2d 1038, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 1991) (court of appeals must independently determine that the judgment is final). We lack jurisdiction because Mohsen did not file a timely notice of appeal after the bankruptcy court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration. See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8002(a)(1), (b)(1) (notice of appeal must be filed within 14 days after entry of the order being appealed; time to file an appeal runs from entry of the order disposing of a timely post-judgment tolling motion); 28 U.S.C. § 158(c)(2) (an appeal to the BAP must be taken within the time provided by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8002); Anderson v. Mouradick (In re Mouradick), 13 F.3d 326, 327 (9th Cir. 1994) (“[T]he untimely filing of a notice of appeal deprives the appellate court of jurisdiction to review the bankruptcy court’s order.” (citations omitted)). Mohsen’s request for oral argument, set forth in the opening brief, is denied. DISMISSED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3,