IN RE: William P. CHENG; Janet Cheng, Debtors. William P. Cheng; Janet Cheng, Appellants, v. Arthur Osterback; et al., Appellees

IN RE: William P. CHENG; Janet Cheng, Debtors. William P. Cheng; Janet Cheng, Appellants, v. Arthur Osterback; et al., Appellees. No. 16-15759 United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted September 26, 2017 FILED OCTOBER 5, 2017 William P, Cheng, Sacramento, CA, pro se. Janet Cheng, Sacramento, CA, pro se, Peter Nixon Brewer, Esquire, Henry Chuang, Esquire, Law Office of Peter N. Brewer, Palo Alto, CA, for Appellees. Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. The panel unanimously concludes mis case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R, App. P. 34(a)(2), [MAJORITY] MEMORANDUM Chapter 7 debtors William P. Cheng and Janet Cheng appeal pro se from the district court’s order dismissing the Chengs’ bankruptcy appeal. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 158(d) and 1291. We affirm. In their opening brief, the Chengs fail to address how the district court erred by dismissing their appeal for failure to comply with the court’s order and as moot. As a result, the Chengs have waived their challenge to the district court’s order. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[0]n appeal, arguments, not raised by a party in its opening brief afe deemed waived.”); Greenwood v. FAA, 28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir. 1994) (“We will not manufacture arguments for an appellant, and a bare assertion does not preserve a claim .... ”), Because we affirm the district court’s order dismissing’ the Chengs’ -bankruptcy appeal, we do not consider their arguments challenging the bankruptcy court’s orders. AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.