
    IN RE: YAN SUI, Debtor. Yan Sui; Pei-Yu Yang, Appellants, v. Richard A. Marshack; et al., Appellees.
    No. 16-60081
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 8, 2017 
    
    Filed May 18, 2017
    Yan Sui, Pro Se
    Pei-Yu Yang, Pro Se
    David M. Goodrich, SulmeyerKupetz, Los Angeles, CA, Chad V. Haes, Attorney, Marshack Hays LLP, Irvine, CA, for Ap-pellee Richard A. Marshack
    James Clement Harkins, Esquire, Attorney, Cane Walker & Harkins LLP, Tustin, CA, for Appellee Pacific Homeowners Association
    Misty Vanarkel, Pro Se
    Timothy James McFeely, Esquire, Mari-um Moore, Esquire, Selman Breitman LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Appellee Scottsdale Insurance Company
    Jess Bressi, Dentons US LLP, Newport Beach, CA, for Appellee Dentops US, LLP
    Before: REINHARDT, LEAVY, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Chapter 7 debtor Yan Sui and non-debt- or Pei-Yu Yang appeal pro se from a judgment of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (“BAP”) dismissing Sui’s appeal for lack of standing. We must determine our own jurisdiction sua sponte. Special Investments, Inc. v. Aero Air, Inc., 360 F.3d 989, 992 (9th Cir. 2004). We dismiss for lack of appellate jurisdiction.

On May 5, 2016, the bankruptcy court entered an order denying Sui’s motion challenging the validity of claims filed in his bankrqptcy case. On May 19, 2016, Sui refiled his motion seeking identical relief. On July 8, 2016, the bankruptcy court entered an order denying Sui’s second motion. Sui filed a notice of appeal on July 19, 2016.

We lack jurisdiction over this appeal because Sui did not appeal from the bankruptcy court’s final order within the 14 days prescribed by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8002(a)(1). See 28 U.S.C. § 158(c)(2) (an appeal to the BAP or district court from a bankruptcy court must be taken within the time provided by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8002); Slimick v. Silva (In re Slimick), 928 F.2d 304, 307 (9th Cir. 1990) (the filing of an order or judgment after the entry of a final disposition resolving the issue at bar does not constitute a second final disposition or extend the appeal period); see also Anderson v. Mouradick (In re Mouradick), 13 F.3d 326, 327 (9th Cir. 1994) (“The provisions of Bankruptcy Rule 8002 are jurisdictional; the untimely filing of a notice of appeal deprives the appellate court of jurisdiction to review the bankruptcy court’s order.”).

All pending motions are denied.-

DISMISSED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     