
    IN RE: Bruce Lee ALLEN, dba Bruce Allen Construction, Debtor, Bruce Lee Allen, Appellant, v. Gary L. Rainsdon, Chapter 7 Trustee Zions First National Bank, Appellees.
    No. 14-60001
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted July 26, 2016 
    
    August 03, 2016
    Bruce Lee Allen, Red Lodge, MT, Pro Se.
    Daniel C. Green, Racine Olson Nye Budge & Bailey, Chtd., Pocatello, ID, for Appellee Gary L. Rainsdon, Chapter 7 Trustee.
    Gavin Troy Parkinson, Prince Yeates & Geldzahler, Salt Lake City, UT, for Zions First National Bank.
    Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Bruce Lee Allen, a Chapter 7 debtor, appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s (“BAP”) judgment affirming the bankruptcy court’s order approving the Chapter 7 trustee’s settlement of claims that Allen asserted in state court against Zions First National Bank. 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 affirm.

The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by approving the settlement agreement because the record supports the bankruptcy court’s conclusion that the settlement was fair and equitable. See Martin v. Kane (In re A&C Props.), 784 F.2d 1377, 1380-83 (9th Cir. 1986) (approval of a compromise is not an abuse of discretion where the record contains a factual foundation establishing that the compromise was fair and equitable).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in Allen’s opening brief to the BAP. See Burnett v. Resurgent Capital Servs. (In re Burnett), 435 F.3d 971, 976-77 (9th Cir. 2006) (issues not presented to BAP are waived unless there are “exceptional circumstances”).

All pending requests are denied as moot.

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