
    IN RE: YAN SUI, Debtor. Yan Sui, Appellant, v. Richard A. Marshack, Chapter 7 Trustee, Appellee.
    No. 16-60049
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 8, 2017 
    
    Filed May 18, 2017
    Yan Sui, Pro Se
    Chad V. Haes, Attorney, Marshack Hays LLP, Irvine, CA, for Ap'pelleel7-1489
    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 appeals pro se from a judgment of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (“BAP”) affirming the bankruptcy court’s order denying Sui’s claimed homestead exemption. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review-decisions of the BAP de novo and apply the same standard of review that the BAP applied to the bankruptcy court’s ruling. Americredit Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Penrod (In re Penrod), 611 F.3d 1158, 1160 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.

The bankruptcy court properly denied Sui’s claimed homestead exemption because the record shows that Sui voluntarily transferred the property prior to filing his bankruptcy petition and failed to disclose any interest in the property or schedule secured claims that might have alerted the chapter 7 trustee to the transfer. See 11 U.S.C. § 522(g)(1) (allowing a debtor to exempt property recovered by a trustee if the debtor did not voluntarily transfer or conceal the property); Glass v. Hitt (In re Glass), 60 F.3d 565, 568-69 (9th Cir. 1995) (explaining requirements for 11 U.S.C. § 522(g)(1) to apply).

We do not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal or 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).

Sui’s motion for leave to file a late filed reply brief (Docket Entry No. 12) is granted. The Clerk shall file the reply brief submitted at Docket Entry No. 11.

Sui’s motion to consolidate this case with Appeal Nos. 16-60065 and 15-60066 (Docket Entry No. 12) is denied.

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