
    IN RE: Yousif H. HALLOUM, Debtor. Yousif H. Halloum, Appellant, v. McCormick, Barstow, Sheppard, Wayte & Carruth; Hilton A. Ryder, U.S. Trustee, Appellees.
    No. 16-60059
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 11, 2017 
    
    Filed April 21, 2017
    Yousif H. Halloum, Pro Se
    Scott M. Reddie, McCormick Barstow Sheppard Wayte & Carruth, Fresno, CA, for Appellees
    Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Halloum's request for oral argument, set forth in his reply brief, is denied.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Yousif Halloum appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s (“BAP”) judgment affirming the bankruptcy court’s order allowing fees and expenses to Hall-oum’s former counsel, and the BAP’s order denying rehearing. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158. We independently review the bankruptcy court’s decision, see Law Offices of David A. Boone v. Derham-Burk (In re Eliapo), 468 F.3d 592, 596 (9th Cir. 2006), and we affirm.

The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in awarding fees to Halloum’s former counsel on the basis of the parties’ retainer agreement, because counsel testified that Halloum had signed the agreement and that the parties did not enter into a flat fee arrangement. See Stahl v. Simon (In re Adamson Apparel, Inc.), 785 F.3d 1285, 1291 (9th Cir. 2015) (“Clear error exists when, although there is evidence to support the lower court’s conclusion, the reviewing court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

We reject as without merit Halloum’s arguments that the BAP and the bankruptcy court ■ violated his due process rights.

Halloum’s motion to file an oversize reply brief (Docket No. 18) is granted.

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