
    Ramin YEGANEH, Appellant, and Philip Alarcon; William Lee Beasley, II; Cleo Carey, Hari Chand; Krishna Chand; Lula Jackson Christian; Cheryl Dockery; Kenneth Hearne; Gene Helvie; Joannah Jackson; Joe Jackson; Yolanda Jackson; Shahen Lachen; Latonoa Lauese Maliaeme Lauese; Cecil Leonard; Katherine Loudd; Webster Loudd; Fely Mabutas; Romeo Mabutas; Doroteo Magana; Gloria Penney; Gendolyn Penney; Lucy Mae Pickens; Rose Lyllian F. Piedot; Roy C. Piedot; George Porter; Rosa Rivera; Willie Roberson; Second Baptist Church of Fowler; Yolanda Segura Henry Stevens; Joan Trail; Sam Trail; Seno Lita Tuipulotu Adolphurs Turner; Nadine Turner; Yvette Williams; Barbara A. Wright, Creditors, v. Charles E. SIMS, Trustee-Appellee.
    No. 06-17143.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 18, 2008.
    
    Filed July 23, 2008.
    George P. Eshoo, Esq., George P. Eshoo & Associates, Redwood City, CA, William E. Gilg, Esq., San Bruno, CA, for Appellant.
    Evan R. Sorem, Esq., San Diego, CA, for Creditors.
    
      Charles A. Bird, Esq., Luce Forward Hamilton & Scripps, LLP, San Diego, CA, Charles P. Maher, Esq., Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps, LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Trustee-Appellee.
    Before: W. FLETCHER and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges, and BERTELSMAN , District Judge.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
       The Honorable William O. Bertelsman, Senior United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Kentucky, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

We are asked to decide whether the Bankruptcy Court abused its discretion in authorizing the compromise of claims in Appellant Ramin Yeganeh’s Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceedings. In re A & C Properties, 784 F.2d 1377, 1380 (9th Cir. 1986). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 158(d) and 1291. The district court found no abuse of discretion in its thorough and well-reasoned order dated October 23, 2006, 2006 WL 3020939. We affirm for the reasons stated in the district court’s order.

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