Buster

MEMORANDUM *

Jack B. Buster (“Buster”) appeals pro se from the district court’s order granting appellees’ motion to turn over funds on behalf of himself and purportedly on behalf of Westwood Acres (“Westwood”), a limited partnership in which Buster is the general partner. The district court ordered that a percentage of escrow funds held by Westwood be turned over to the appellees pursuant to a previously issued charging order against Buster’s partnership interest in Westwood. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm.

This court lacks jurisdiction over Westwood because counsel for Westwood did not sign the notice of appeal or file a separate notice of appeal, see Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1)(A); Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corr., 434 U.S. 257, 264 , 98 S.Ct. 556 , 54 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978); Thomas, Head & Greisen Employees Trust v. Buster, 95 F.3d 1449 , 1460 n. 19 (9th Cir.1996) (finding that “Westwood was required to file a separate notice of appeal in order the challenge the merits of the [recent] order”), and the signatory to the valid notice of appeal, Buster, is not an attorney, see Lickt v. Am. W. Airlines (In re Am. W. Airlines), 40 F.3d 1058, 1059 (9th…