
    In re: Robert Leo SHEPARD; et al., Debtors, Robert Leo Shepard, Appellant, v. Glenn Conklin, Appellee.
    No. 10-60016.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 10, 2011.
    
    Filed Jan. 24, 2011.
    Robert Leo Shepard, Oakhurst, CA, pro se.
    David Ray Jenkins, David R. Jenkins, PC, Fresno, CA, for Appellee.
    Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Robert Leo Shepard, a Chapter 7 debt- or, appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s (“BAP”) judgment affirming the bankruptcy court’s summary judgment determining that Shepard’s debt to Glenn Conklin was nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4) and (a)(6). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo BAP decisions, and apply the same standard of review that the BAP applied to the bankruptcy court’s ruling. Boyajian v. New Falls Corp. (In re Boyajian), 564 F.3d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir.2009). We review de novo the bankruptcy court’s grant of summary judgment. Id. We affirm.

The bankruptcy court properly granted summary judgment based on issue preclusion because a prior, final state court decision between the parties necessarily decided that Shepard committed “defalcation while acting in a fiduciary capacity” with respect to Conklin and inflicted “willful and malicious injury” on him. See 11 U.S.C. §§ 523(a)(4) and (a)(6); see also Harmon v. Kobrin (In re Harmon), 250 F.3d 1240, 1245 (9th Cir.2001) (explaining that “[pjrinciples of collateral estoppel apply to proceedings seeking exceptions from discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a),” and setting forth issue preclusion requirements under California law).

Shepard’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

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