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:T4fb,MEMORANDUM Chapter 7 debtors Dustin Roger Chantel and Elizabeth Darlene Chantel appeal pro se from a judgment of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (“BAP”) affirming the bankruptcy court’s order denying the debtors a discharge. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158 (d). We affirm. In the opening brief, the debtors fail to address how the bankruptcy court erred in denying them a discharge. As a result, the debtors have waived their challenge to the bankruptcy court’s order. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[0]n appeal, arguments not raised by a party in its opening brief are deemed waived.”); Greenwood v. FAA, 28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir. 1994) (“We review only issues which are argued specifically and distinctly in a party’s opening brief.”). We reject as without merit the debtors’ contentions concerning their right to a jury trial and court-appointed counsel, and regarding the timeliness of the United States Trustee’s adversary proceeding complaint. The debtors’ “motion to grant default judgment under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 55” (Docket Entry No. 20) is denied. AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.24:T532,

MEMORANDUM

Chapter 7 debtors Dustin Roger Chantel and Elizabeth Darlene Chantel appeal pro se from a judgment of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (“BAP”) affirming the bankruptcy court’s order denying the debtors a discharge. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158 (d). We affirm.

In the opening brief, the debtors fail to address how the bankruptcy court erred in denying them a discharge. As a result, the debtors have waived their challenge to the bankruptcy court’s order. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[0]n appeal, arguments not raised by a party in its opening brief are deemed waived.”); Greenwood v. FAA, 28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir. 1994) (“We review only issues which are argued specifically and distinctly in a party’s opening brief.”).

We reject as without merit the debtors’ contentions concerning their right to a jury trial and court-appointed counsel, and regarding the timeliness of the United States Trustee’s adversary proceeding complaint.

The debtors’ “motion to grant default judgment under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 55” (Docket Entry No. 20) is denied.

AFFIRMED.

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