docket.” Fed. R. Bankr.P. 8009(a)(1). Although neither the First Circuit nor any District of Massachusetts court has issued an opinion directly on point, most other courts in the First Circuit believe that the decision to dismiss bankruptcy appeals for failure to comply with Rule 8009 is discretionary. See, e.g., Balles v. Sturgill, 2009 WL 690079, at *1 (D.N.H.2009) (indicating that but for confusion as to instructions on the docket, appellant’s appeal would have been dismissed for failure to comply with Rule 8009); Wiscovitch-Rentas v. Pharm. Processes, 2009 WL 693178, at *1 (D.P.R. 2009) (dismissing appeal for failure to file a brief or request an extension of time to do so within the time allotted by Rule 8009(a)); Rodriguez-Quesada v. U.S. Trustee, 222 B.R. 193, 199 (D.P.R.1998) (<HOLDING>); In re Cumberland Inv. Corp., 133 B.R. 275,
holding that the failure to file a proper motion to dismiss raising a constitutional challenge to a criminal statute waives the issue on appeal holding that the bankruptcy court could not extend a deadline for filing a notice of appeal beyond the 20 day extension period allowed by the bankruptcy rules holding that the plaintiffs motion for extension of time to file appeal qualified as a notice of appeal because it met the requirements of rule 4 of the federal rules of appellate procedure holding that it is proper to dismiss an appellants appeal for failure to file a brief or request an extension within the time allotted by the bankruptcy rules holding that a creditor who had received actual notice of a bankruptcy proceeding through his counsel did not suffer a due process violation because he had notice in time to file a complaint or at least to file a timely motion for an extension of time