In Re Guaranteed Better Sales Marketing, Inc., D/b/a Gbsmarketing, Inc., Debtor.holmes P. Harden, Trustee in Bankruptcy for Guaranteedbetter Sales Marketing, Inc., D/b/a Gbs Marketing,inc., Richard A. Summerville, Plaintiffs-appellees, v. Donald K. Gallion, Defendant-appellant, 870 F.2d 654 (4th Cir. 1989)

Donald Gallion appeals from the judgment of the district court dismissing as untimely his appeal from a judgment of the bankruptcy court. We affirm.

The judgment of the bankruptcy court was entered on December 17, 1987. Under Bankruptcy Rules 8002(a) and 9006(a) Gallion had until January 6, 1988 to file a timely appeal. This, he failed to do.

On January 11, 1988, Gallion filed a motion to extend the appeal period. Bankruptcy Rule 8002(c) provides that a request for an extension filed within twenty days of the expiration of the appeal period may be granted upon a showing of excusable neglect. Misinterpretation or ignorance of the applicable time limits even by pro se litigants does not constitute excusable neglect. See In re Fisher, 65 Bankr. 261 (Bankr.N.D. Ga. 1986); Matter of Ghosh, 47 Bankr. 374 (E.D.N.Y. 1984).

In this case, Gallion bases his request for an extension on his filing, as part of the extension motions, of a motion to amend or make additional findings of fact pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 7052 and a motion to alter or amend the judgment pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 9023. While it is true that a timely Rule 7052 or Rule 9023 motion serves to toll the appeal period, in this case, the motions were not timely because they were not filed within ten days of judgment and, hence, did not form a basis for tolling the appeal period. See Whitemere Development Corp. v. Township of Cherry Hill, 786 F.2d 185 (3d Cir. 1986).

Because Gallion failed to file a timely notice of appeal and failed to make a showing of excusable neglect which would justify an extension of the appeal period, the district court properly dismissed his appeal from the bankruptcy court. Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We also deny Gallion's motion to furnish this Court with the results of an investigation into possible criminal offenses committed by Gallion and his motion requesting the House Judiciary Committee to hear this case. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the material before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.