IN RE: Henry W. JARUSIK and Kathleen M. Brady, Appellants

IN RE: Henry W. JARUSIK and Kathleen M. Brady, Appellants. No. 15-3262 United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit. Submitted on Motion for Summary Affirmance Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 May 26, 2016 (Opinion filed: June 10, 2016) Henry W. Jarusik, Lincoln University, PA, Pro Se. Kathleen M. Brady, Lincoln University, PA, Pro Se. Jack K. Miller, Esq., William C. Miller, Esq., Philadelphia, PA, for Trustee-Appel-lee. Before: FUENTES, KRAUSE, and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges [MAJORITY — PER CURIAM] OPINION PER CURIAM Pro se appellants Henry W. Jarusik and Kathleen M. Brady (“Appellants”) appeal from the District Court’s dismissal of their appeal from an order entered in the Unit-ed States Bankruptcy Court. Because the appeal presents no substantial question, we will grant Trustee William C. Miller’s (“Trustee”) motion to summarily affirm the District Court’s order. In July 2012, Appellants filed a bank-ruptcy petition in the United States Bank-ruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Upon the Trustee’s motion, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order dismissing the case on September 23, 2014. On March 18, 2015, Appellants filed in the District Court a motion seeking reconsideration of the Bankruptcy Court’s September 23, 2014 dismissal order. The District Court construed Appellants’ motion for reconsideration as a notice of ap-peal from the Bankruptcy Court’s Sep-tember 23, 2014 order. Upon review of Appellants’ filing, the District Court de-termined that the appeal was untimely un-der Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Proce-dure 8002(a), and dismissed the appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Appellants timely appealed to this Court, and the Trustee has filed a motion for summary affirmance, which Appellants have not opposed. We have jurisdiction to review the Dis-trict Court’s final decision pursuant to 28 • U.S.C. § 158(d)(1). We exercise de novo review over the question of subject matter jurisdiction. Great W. Mining & Mineral Co. v. Fox Rothschild LLP, 615 F.3d 159, 163 (3d Cir. 2010). As an initial matter, we agree with the District Court’s decision to characterize Appellants’ motion for reconsideration as a notice of appeal. Appellants filed their motion directly in the District Court and re-quested that the District Court vacate the decision of the Bankruptcy Court and re-mand the case for further proceedings. Thus, because Appellants were clearly seeking to appeal the Bankruptcy Court’s final order (rather than requesting that the Bankruptcy Court reconsider its own order), the District Court properly con-strued Appellants’ filing as notice of ap-peal. Indeed, Appellants do not take issue with the District Court’s characterization of their filing. Upon review of the record, we conclude that the District Court properly' deter-mined that it did not have jurisdiction over Appellants’ appeal from the order of the Bankruptcy Court. Appeals from bank-ruptcy courts must be brought “in the time provided by Rule 8002 of the Bankruptcy Rules.” 28 U.S.C. § 158(c)(2). Rule 8002(a)(1) states that a notice of appeal must be filed within 14 days of the entry of a bankruptcy court’s order. We have held that this 14-day time limit is mandatory and jurisdictional. In re Caterbone, 640 F.3d 108,110,113 (3d Cir. 2011). In this case, the Bankruptcy Court en-tered its order dismissing Appellants’ bankruptcy case on September 23, 2014. Accordingly, under Rule 8002(a)(1), Appel-lants’ notice of appeal was due by October 7, 2014. Appellants filed their appeal al-most six months later, on March 18, 2015. Appellants also did not request an extension of time to appeal. See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8002(c). Thus, as the District Court determined, Appellants’ notice of appeal was untimely and it lacked jurisdiction to review th¿ Bankruptcy Court’s order. See In re Caterbone, 640 F.3d at 110; S’hold-ers v. Sound Radio, Inc., 109 F.3d 873, 879 (3d Cir. 1997). Accordingly, we will affirm the District Court’s August 27, 2015 order. This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. .The Bankruptcy Court’s order also barred Appellants from filing another bankruptcy pe-tition for a period of one year. . We have, however, considered the argu-ments presented by Appellants in their infor-mal brief. , We earlier denied Appellants' emergency re-quest to stay the sale of their property, which was scheduled for March 17, 2016.