filed his tax returns. Harris sought reconsideration of the district court’s dismissal of his appeal, but missed the filing deadline by one day. Harris made no request to extend the deadline and did not provide any “facts or argument that would justify accepting his late filing based on excusable neglect under Bankruptcy Rule 9006(b)(1).” Accordingly, on February 16, 2005, the district court denied his motion for reconsideration. Harris timely appeals from the dismissal of his appeal and the denial of his motion for reconsideration. DISCUSSION We review a district court’s dismissal of a bankruptcy appeal on procedural grounds for abuse of discretion. See In re Lynch, 430 F.3d 600, 603 (2d Cir.2005) (per curiam); see also In re Tampa Chain Co., 835 F.2d 54, 55 (2d Cir.1987) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>). A district court abuses its discretion when
holding that the district courts decision to dismiss will be affirmed unless it has abused its discretion holding that appellate court should overturn a district courts denial of a motion to amend a complaint only if the district court has abused its discretion holding that the decision of the bia will not be affirmed by this court unless the reasons for such a finding are made clear holding that the decision whether to apply the exhaustion requirement in an erisa case is committed to the district courts sound discretion but that the district court abused its discretion by not dismissing the suit for failure to exhaust administrative remedies holding that we will not review such a decision unless the record reflects that the district court was not aware of or did not understand its discretion