Schneider

MEMORANDUM **

Eugene Schneider appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s (“BAP”) decision affirming the bankruptcy court’s final order denying his motion to extend time to file a notice of appeal in an adversary proceeding in the debtor’s bankruptcy case. We have jurisdiction pursuant to1 28 U.S.C. § 158 (d). On appeal from the BAP, we review the bankruptcy court’s conclusions of law de novo and its factual findings for clear error. Sticka v. Casserino (In re Casserino), 379 F.3d 1069, 1072 (9th Cir.2004). We affirm.

We reject Schneider’s contention that he should have received an extension of time to file a notice of appeal because notice of the underlying judgment was mistakenly mailed to his former counsel. See Fed. R. Bankr.P. 9022(a) (lack of notice “does not ... authorize the court to relieve a party for failure to appeal within the time allowed, except as permitted in Rule 8002”); Fed. R. Bankr.P. 8002(c) (time to appeal may be extended — upon a showing of excusable neglect — only by motion filed not later than twenty days after the expiration of the time for filing a notice of appeal).

The bankruptcy court did not err in denying Schneider’s extension request…