
    In re: Sabra ALBRITTON, Debtor, Sabra Albritton, Appellant, v. Stanley J. Kartchner; et al., Appellees.
    No. 10-60026.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 25, 2011.
    
    Filed Nov. 2, 2011.
    Sabra Albritton, Sierra Vista, AZ, pro se.
    Stanley J. Kartchner, Tucson, AZ, pro se.
    Mark S. Bosco, Esquire, Leonard McDonald, Jr., Tiffany & Bosco, PA, Phoenix, AZ, Matthew Goldstein, Gust Rosenfeld PLC, Tucson, AZ, for Appellees.
    Before: TROTT, GOULD, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Sabra Albritton appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s judgment affirming the bankruptcy court’s order granting Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.’s motion for relief from an automatic stay with respect to certain real property. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo BAP decisions, and apply the same standard of review that the BAP applied to the bankruptcy court’s ruling. Boyajian v. New Falls Corp. (In re Boyajian), 564 F.3d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir.2009). We may affirm on any ground supported by the record, Stevens v. Nw. Nat’l Ins. Co. (In re Siriani), 967 F.2d 302, 304 (9th Cir.1992), and we affirm-.

The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by granting relief from the automatic stay with respect to certain real property because the real property at issue was not property of the bankruptcy estate, and Albritton had no equity in that property. See 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1), (2) (allowing bankruptcy court to grant relief from the stay either for cause or with respect to property in which the debtor has no equity and which is unnecessary to an effective reorganization); Moldo v. Matsco, Inc. (In re Cybernetic Servs., Inc.), 252 F.3d 1039, 1045 (9th Cir.2001) (reviewing for an abuse of discretion the bankruptcy court’s decision to grant relief from an automatic stay).

Albritton’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

Countrywide’s opposed motions for sanctions and to strike, filed on July 12, 2010, are denied.

Albritton’s opposed motion to file an amended reply brief, filed on December 16, 2010, is granted.

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