
    In re: Arnaldo D’ALFONSO and Libusa D’Alfonso, Debtors, Luisa Beristain, Appellant, v. Arnaldo D’Alfonso; et al., Appellees.
    No. 11-60046.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Aug. 14, 2013.
    
    Filed Aug. 21, 2013.
    John Ka-Keung Fu, Esquire, Law Offices of John K. Fu A, Burbank, CA, for Appellant.
    Walter Brandt Scott, Esquire, Law Offices of Walter Scott, Glendale, CA, for Appellees.
    UST-United States Trustee, Los Ange-les, CA, pro se.
    Before: SCHROEDER, GRABER, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Luisa Beristain appeals from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s (“BAP”) order dismissing her appeal as untimely under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 8002(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo, Wiersma v. Bank of the West (In re Wiersma), 483 F.3d 933, 938 (9th Cir.2007), and we affirm.

The BAP properly dismissed the appeal because Beristain filed her notice of appeal more than fourteen days after entry of the bankruptcy court’s order denying her motion for a new trial or to alter or amend a judgment. See Fed. R. Bankr.P. 8002(a) & (c) (establishing 14-day time period for filing a notice of appeal from a bankruptcy court decision and explaining that after the 14-day time period for filing a notice of appeal has elapsed, a bankruptcy judge may extend the time upon written motion showing excusable neglect); In re Wiersma, 483 F.3d at 938 (“The timely appeal requirement is jurisdictional.”); see also Key Bar Invs., Inc. v. Cahn (In re Cahn), 188 B.R. 627, 632 (9th Cir. BAP 1995) (“It is well-settled that failure to receive notice of entry of judgment or order is not an excuse for an untimely appeal because it is the party’s affirmative duty to monitor the dockets.”).

Beristain’s arguments about impediments to filing the notice of appeal are unpersuasive.

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