Thomas Hantges v. Michael Carmel

MEMORANDUM

Thomas Hantges appeals from the district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s order requiring the turnover of bankruptcy estate property in his Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158 (d). We review for clear error whether an appellant is a “person aggrieved.” Duckor Spradling & Metzger v. Baum Trust (In re P.R.T.C., Inc.), 177 F.3d 774, 777 (9th Cir.1999). We affirm.

The district court pi'operly dismissed the appeal for lack of standing because, by his own admission, Hantges was not “directly and adversely affected pecuniarily” by the bankruptcy court’s order and hence did not qualify as a “person aggrieved.” Id.

Hantges’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.