22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T46f,MEMORANDUM Vincent Torres appeals pro se from the district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s order denying his request for sanctions against the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158 (d)(1): We review independently the bankruptcy court’s decision without deference to the district court’s determinations. Cossu v. Jefferson Pilot Sec. Corp. (In re Cossu), 410 F.3d 591, 595 (9th Cir.2005). We affirm. The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in denying Torres’s motion for sanctions after concluding that the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians did not act in bad faith by filing a proof of claim in Torres’s bankruptcy proceedings. See Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 55 , 111 S.Ct. 2123 , 115 L.Ed.2d 27 (1991) (standard of review); Knupfer v. Lindblade (In re Dyer), 322 F.3d 1178, 1196 (9th Cir.2003) (for a court to use its inherent sanctioning power, there must be an explicit finding of bad faith or willful misconduct). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T49c,

MEMORANDUM

Vincent Torres appeals pro se from the district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s order denying his request for sanctions against the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158 (d)(1): We review independently the bankruptcy court’s decision without deference to the district court’s determinations. Cossu v. Jefferson Pilot Sec. Corp. (In re Cossu), 410 F.3d 591, 595 (9th Cir.2005). We affirm.

The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in denying Torres’s motion for sanctions after concluding that the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians did not act in bad faith by filing a proof of claim in Torres’s bankruptcy proceedings. See Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 55 , 111 S.Ct. 2123 , 115 L.Ed.2d 27 (1991) (standard of review); Knupfer v. Lindblade (In re Dyer), 322 F.3d 1178, 1196 (9th Cir.2003) (for a court to use its inherent sanctioning power, there must be an explicit finding of bad faith or willful misconduct).

AFFIRMED.

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