IN RE: Maura SANTANA; Teodoro Santana, Debtors. Esperanza Ventus Bada; Law Offices of Esperanza V. Bada, Appellants, v. Nancy K. Curry, Chapter 13 Trustee; et al., Appellees

IN RE: Maura SANTANA; Teodoro Santana, Debtors. Esperanza Ventus Bada; Law Offices of Esperanza V. Bada, Appellants, v. Nancy K. Curry, Chapter 13 Trustee; et al., Appellees. No. 13-60006 United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted October 25, 2016 Filed November 04, 2016 Esperanza Ventus Bada, Attorney, Law Offices of Esperanza V. Bada, West Covi-na, CA, for Appellants Masako Okuda, Nancy K. Curry, Chapter 13 Trustee, Los Angeles, CA, for Ap-pellee Before: LEAVY, SILVERMAN, and GRABER, 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 Esperanza Ventus Bada, an attorney, appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s (“BAP”) judgment dismissing her appeal as untimely. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo. Mantz v. Cal. State Bd. of Equalization (In re Mantz), 343 F.3d 1207, 1211 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm. The BAP properly dismissed Bada s appeal on the basis that it lacked jurisdiction because Bada did not appeal from the bankruptcy court’s final order within the 14 days prescribed by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8002(a)(1). See Slimick v. Silva (In re Slimick), 928 F.2d 304, 307 (9th Cir. 1990) (the filing of an order or judgment after the entry of a final disposition resolving the issue at bar does not constitute a second final disposition or extend the appeal period). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.