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:T523,MEMORANDUM Chandana Basu appeals from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s (“BAP”) order denying reconsideration of its order dismissing her appeal for failure to prosecute. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158 (d). We review for an abuse of discretion, Nat’l Bank of Long Beach v. Donovan (In re Donovan), 871 F.2d 807, 808 (9th Cir.1989) (per curiam), and we affirm. The BAP did not abuse its discretion in denying Basu’s motion for reconsideration because Basu failed to establish grounds for such relief, and instead, merely repeated arguments previously presented to and considered by the BAP. See Fed. R.Civ.P. 60(b) (listing grounds for relief from judgment); Fed. R. Bankr.P. 9024 (applying Fed.R.Civ.P. 60 to bankruptcy proceedings with limited exceptions). We do not address arguments raised for the first time on appeal, including Basu’s contentions regarding the merits of the bankruptcy court’s judgment in the underlying Chapter 7 adversary proceeding against her. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983 , 985 n. 2 (9th Cir.2009) (per cu-riam). Basu’s motion to augment the record with documents not relevant to the sole issue properly on appeal is denied. AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T55a,

MEMORANDUM

Chandana Basu appeals from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s (“BAP”) order denying reconsideration of its order dismissing her appeal for failure to prosecute. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158 (d). We review for an abuse of discretion, Nat’l Bank of Long Beach v. Donovan (In re Donovan), 871 F.2d 807, 808 (9th Cir.1989) (per curiam), and we affirm.

The BAP did not abuse its discretion in denying Basu’s motion for reconsideration because Basu failed to establish grounds for such relief, and instead, merely repeated arguments previously presented to and considered by the BAP. See Fed. R.Civ.P. 60(b) (listing grounds for relief from judgment); Fed. R. Bankr.P. 9024 (applying Fed.R.Civ.P. 60 to bankruptcy proceedings with limited exceptions).

We do not address arguments raised for the first time on appeal, including Basu’s contentions regarding the merits of the bankruptcy court’s judgment in the underlying Chapter 7 adversary proceeding against her. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983 , 985 n. 2 (9th Cir.2009) (per cu-riam).

Basu’s motion to augment the record with documents not relevant to the sole issue properly on appeal is denied.

AFFIRMED.

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