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:T44d,MEMORANDUM Pei-Yu Yang appeals pro se from an order of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (“BAP”) dismissing as moot Yang’s appeal of the bankruptcy court’s order requiring Yang to turnover real property. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158 (d). We review de novo the BAP’s determination that a bankruptcy appeal is moot. Nat’l Mass Media Telecomm. Sys., Inc. v. Stanley (In re Nat’l Mass Media Telecomm. Sys., Inc.), 152 F.3d 1178 , 1180 (9th Cir. 1998). We affirm. The BAP properly dismissed Yang’s appeal as moot because the property was conveyed to a third party which prevented the BAP from granting effective relief. See id. at 1180-81 (affirming dismissal on the basis of mootness where the sale of the property to a non-party prevented the court from granting effective relief). Because Yang’s appeal is moot, we do not consider her arguments addressing the underlying merits of the appeal. All pending requests and motions are denied. AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.24:T484,

MEMORANDUM

Pei-Yu Yang appeals pro se from an order of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (“BAP”) dismissing as moot Yang’s appeal of the bankruptcy court’s order requiring Yang to turnover real property. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158 (d). We review de novo the BAP’s determination that a bankruptcy appeal is moot. Nat’l Mass Media Telecomm. Sys., Inc. v. Stanley (In re Nat’l Mass Media Telecomm. Sys., Inc.), 152 F.3d 1178 , 1180 (9th Cir. 1998). We affirm.

The BAP properly dismissed Yang’s appeal as moot because the property was conveyed to a third party which prevented the BAP from granting effective relief. See id. at 1180-81 (affirming dismissal on the basis of mootness where the sale of the property to a non-party prevented the court from granting effective relief).

Because Yang’s appeal is moot, we do not consider her arguments addressing the underlying merits of the appeal.

All pending requests and motions are denied.

AFFIRMED.

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