FILED

NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 10 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

In re: IBT INTERNATIONAL, INC., No. 12-60061

Debtor, BAP No. 11-1684

IBT INTERNATIONAL, INC.,

MEMORANDUM*

Appellant,

v.

DAVID TEDDER ENTITIES, Van Dan Limited Partnership, CMT Limited Partnership, DTG Limited Partnership, Gallery I, Inc., Hampton Limited Partnership, Key Enterprises, Inc., Slevin Limited Partnership, Showthunder, Inc., Trails End Limited Partnership, Birch International Limited Partnership;

DONALD GRAMMER ENTITIES,

Banyan Limited Partnership, Orange Blossom Limited Partnership, Pear Tree Limited Partnership,

Appellees.

In re: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA No. 12-60065

SUNBELT DEVELOPERS, INC.,

BAP No. 11-1685

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. Debtors,

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SUNBELT

DEVELOPERS, INC.,

Appellant,

v.

DAVID TEDDER ENTITIES, Van Dan Limited Partnership, CMT Limited Partnership, DTG Limited Partnership, Gallery I, Inc., Hampton Limited Partnership, Key Enterprises, Inc., Slevin Limited Partnership, Showthunder, Inc., Trails End Limited Partnership, Birch International Limited Partnership;

DONALD GRAMMER ENTITIES,

Banyan Limited Partnership, Orange Blossom Limited Partnership, Pear Tree Limited Partnership,

Appellees.

Appeal from the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Kirscher, Markell and Dunn, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding

Submitted June 12, 2013**

Before: SCHROEDER, FISHER and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

2 Appellants appeal the decision of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel affirming

the decision of the bankruptcy court denying the appellants’ motion for attorney’s

fees incurred at the appellate level. We affirm for the reasons stated in the

Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s well-reasoned memorandum decision of August 7,

2012. See Higgins v. Vortex Fishing Sys., Inc., 379 F.3d 701, 708-09 (9th Cir.

2004) (holding that “§ 303(i)(1), which expressly grants discretionary authority to

award fees at the trial level, should not be construed to grant similar authority to

award fees at the appellate level”); Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 677 (9th Cir.

2011) (“A three-judge panel cannot reconsider or overrule circuit precedent unless

an intervening Supreme Court decision undermines an existing precedent of the

Ninth Circuit, and both cases are closely on point.”).

AFFIRMED.

3