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:T456,MEMORANDUM Avram Moshe Perry appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s (“BAP”) judgment affirming the bankruptcy court’s order denying Perry’s motion to reconsider the bankruptcy court’s prior order directing that an adversary proceeding be closed. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158 (d). We review de novo BAP decisions, and apply the same standard of review that the BAP applied to the bankruptcy court’s ruling. Boyajian v. New Falls Corp. (In re Boyajian), 564 F.3d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir.2009). We affirm. The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in denying Perry’s motion to reconsider its judgment because appellant failed to establish any basis for such relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir.1993) (setting forth grounds for reconsideration). Perry’s motion to supplement his excerpts of record is granted. Perry’s requests for judicial notice are denied as unnecessary. AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T488,

MEMORANDUM

Avram Moshe Perry appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s (“BAP”) judgment affirming the bankruptcy court’s order denying Perry’s motion to reconsider the bankruptcy court’s prior order directing that an adversary proceeding be closed. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158 (d). We review de novo BAP decisions, and apply the same standard of review that the BAP applied to the bankruptcy court’s ruling. Boyajian v. New Falls Corp. (In re Boyajian), 564 F.3d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir.2009). We affirm.

The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in denying Perry’s motion to reconsider its judgment because appellant failed to establish any basis for such relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir.1993) (setting forth grounds for reconsideration).

Perry’s motion to supplement his excerpts of record is granted. Perry’s requests for judicial notice are denied as unnecessary.

AFFIRMED.

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