
    IN RE: Adina I. ZAHARESCU, Debtor. Adina I. Zaharescu, Appellant, v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Appellee.
    No. 15-55552
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted August 9, 2017 
    
    Filed August 24, 2017
    Adina I. Zaharescu, Pro Se
    Joshua Byron Norton, Esquire, Attorney, David Doss Piper, Esquire, Keesal, Young & Logan, Long Beach, CA, Brian A Paino, McGlinchey Stafford, Irvine, CA, for Appellee
    Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument, See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Adina I. Zaharescu appeals pro se from the district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s order dismissing Za-harescu’s chapter 11 bankruptcy case. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo the district court’s decision on appeal from the bankruptcy court and apply the same standards of review applied by the district court. In re Thorpe Insulation Co., 677 F.3d 869, 879 (9th Cir. 2012). We affirm.

The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Zaharescu’s bankruptcy case because the record supports its finding that Zaharescu filed the petition in bad faith. See 11 U.S.C. § 1112(b); Marsch v.- Marsch (In re Marsch), 36 F.3d 825, 828 (9th Cir. 1994) (reviewing for clear error a bankruptcy court’s finding of “bad faith” and for an abuse of discretion its decision to dismiss a bankruptcy case as filed in “bad faith”).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

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