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:T53e,MEMORANDUM Ram Saxena appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s (“BAP”) judgment affirming the bankruptcy court’s order denying relief from its judgment dismissing Saxena’s adversary proceeding as untimely. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158 (d). We review BAP decisions de novo 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 by denying Saxena’s motion for relief from judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) because Saxena failed to demonstrate any basis for relief. See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9024 (making Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 applicable to bankruptcy cases); see also, e.g., Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S. 380, 394-97 , 113 S.Ct. 1489 , 123 L.Ed.2d 74 (1993) (discussing requirements for excusable neglect under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1)); Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. Int’l Fibercom, Inc. (In re Int’l Fibercom, Inc.), 503 F.3d 933, 940-41 (9th Cir. 2007) (discussing requirements for application of “catch-all provision” of Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6)). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.24:T56b,

MEMORANDUM

Ram Saxena appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s (“BAP”) judgment affirming the bankruptcy court’s order denying relief from its judgment dismissing Saxena’s adversary proceeding as untimely. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158 (d). We review BAP decisions de novo 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 by denying Saxena’s motion for relief from judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) because Saxena failed to demonstrate any basis for relief. See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9024 (making Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 applicable to bankruptcy cases); see also, e.g., Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S. 380, 394-97 , 113 S.Ct. 1489 , 123 L.Ed.2d 74 (1993) (discussing requirements for excusable neglect under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1)); Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. Int’l Fibercom, Inc. (In re Int’l Fibercom, Inc.), 503 F.3d 933, 940-41 (9th Cir. 2007) (discussing requirements for application of “catch-all provision” of Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6)).

AFFIRMED.

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