NOT FOR PUBLICATION
`
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`
`FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
`
`RICK NEGRETTE,
`
` Appellant,
`
` v.
`
`PHU V. PHAM; UNITED STATES
`TRUSTEE,
`
` Appellees.
` No. 24-1053
`D.C. No. 5:23-cv-01732-RGK
`
`
`MEMORANDUM*
`
`Appeal from the United States District Court
`for the Central District of California
`R. Gary Klausner, District Judge, Presiding
`
`Submitted July 15, 2025**
`
`Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
`
`Rick Negrette appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment affirming the
`bankruptcy court order imposing fines and damages under 11 U.S.C. § 110. We
`have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d)(1). We review de novo a district
`
`* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
`except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
`
`** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
`without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
`
`FILED
`
`JUL 17 2025
`
`MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
`U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 2 24-1053
`court’s decision on appeal from a bankruptcy court and apply the same standards
`of review applied by the district court. Motor Vehicle Cas. Co. v. Thorpe
`Insulation Co. (In re Thorpe Insulation Co.), 677 F.3d 869, 879 (9th Cir. 2012).
`We affirm.
`The bankruptcy court properly found that Negrette was a bankruptcy petition
`preparer (“BPP”) within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. § 110(a)(1) and that he had
`failed to comply with § 110’s disclosure requirements and practice prohibitions for
`BPPs. See 11 U.S.C. §§ 110(a)(1), (2) (defining a BPP as “a person, other than an
`attorney for the debtor or an employee of such attorney under the direct
`supervision of such attorney, who prepares for compensation” a “petition or any
`other document prepared for filing by a debtor in a United States bankruptcy
`court . . . in connection with a case under this title”); 110(b)(1) (requiring BPPs to
`sign and print their name and address on documents for filing); 110(c)(1), (c)(2)(A)
`(requiring BPPs to provide their Social Security account number on documents for
`filing); 110(f) (prohibiting BPPs from using the word “legal” in advertisements);
`110(g) (prohibiting BPPs from collecting or receiving payment from the debtor for
`court fees in connection with filing a bankruptcy petition); Frankfort Digit. Servs.
`v. Kistler (In re Reynoso), 477 F.3d 1117, 1120 (9th Cir. 2007) (setting forth
`standard of review).
` The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the maximum
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 3 24-1053
`penalty allowed under 11 U.S.C. § 110(l) for Negrette’s violations of § 110’s
`disclosure requirements and practice prohibitions. See 11 U.S.C. §§ 110(l)(1)
`(providing that a BPP “who fails to comply with any provision of [11 U.S.C.
`§ 110] subsection (b), (c), . . . (f) [or] (g) . . . may be fined not more than $500 for
`each such failure”); 110(l)(2)(D) (providing that “[t]he court shall triple the amount
`of a fine assessed under [11 U.S.C. § 110(l)(1)] in any case in which the court finds
`that a bankruptcy petition preparer . . . prepared a document for filing in a manner
`that failed to disclose the identity of the bankruptcy petition preparer”); Frankfort
`Digit. Servs., Ltd. v. Neary (In re Reynoso), 315 B.R. 544, 550 (B.A.P. 9th Cir.
`2004), aff’d, 477 F.3d 1117 (9th Cir. 2007) (setting forth standard of review).
` AFFIRMED.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`