
    Daniel MICHAELESCO, Ortansa Michaelesco, Appellants, v. Molly T. WHITON, Appellee.
    No. 09-3294-bk.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Sept. 22, 2010.
    Daniel and Ortansa Michaelesco, Fair-field, CT, pro se.
    Molly T. Whiton, Hartford, CT, for Ap-pellee.
    PRESENT: ROGER J. MINER, ROBERT D. SACK, and PETER W. HALL, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Appellants Daniel and Ortansa Michae-lesco, pro se, appeal the district court’s judgment dismissing, sua sponte, their appeal from an order of the bankruptcy court for failure to comply with Fed. R. Bankr.P. 8006 and 8009. Although the Michaelescos do not assert that they satisfied the procedural requirements of those rules, they contend on appeal that their non-compliance did not warrant dismissal in light of their excusable neglect. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s determination that a party failed to establish excusable neglect. See In re Lynch, 430 F.3d 600, 603 (2d Cir.2005) (per curiam). Our review of the record indicates that the district court afforded the Michaelescos more than six months to comply with Rules 8006 and 8009 before sua sponte ordering them to show cause why their appeal should not be dismissed; that before dismissing their appeal, the district court granted the Mi-chaelescos’ request for an extension to file the necessary documents, which they nonetheless failed to do; and that the Mi-chaelescos never presented any explanation for their inability to comply with these rules. Based on these considerations, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion by dismissing their appeal. We have considered all of the Michaeles-cos’ arguments and find them to be without merit; accordingly, there is no basis upon which to vacate the district court’s judgment.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.  