Inc., 27 F.3d 386, 389 (9th Cir.1994)). When a literal application of a statute will produce “ ‘a result demonstrably at odds with the intentions of its drafters[,]’ ... the intention of the drafters, rather than the strict language controls.” United States v. Ron Pair Enters., 489 U.S. 235, 242, 109 S.Ct. 1026, 103 L.Ed.2d 290 (1989) (citation omitted). Here, the language of 28 U.S.C. § 158(c)(1) authorizes the BAP to hear an appeal unless the appellant elects “at the time of filing the appeal” to have such appeal heard by the district court. This language clearly requires an election to be made at the time the notice of appeal is filed. See Arkansas Teachers Retirement Sys. v. Official Investment Pool Participants Comm. (In re Comity of Orange), 183 B.R. 593 (9th Cir. BAP 1995) (<HOLDING>). The purpose of requiring an appellant to file
holding that the court did not have jurisdiction to hear an appeal after an untimely filing of a notice of appeal recognizing that an appellants failure to properly file a notice of appeal as to a particular judgment prevents an appellate court from obtaining jurisdiction to review that judgment holding failure to file statement of points is no bar to appeal holding that an untimely postjudgment motion does not toll the time for filing a notice of appeal and that this court has no jurisdiction over an untimely filed appeal holding that an appellants failure to file a separate written statement of election contemporaneously with the notice of appeal rendered the objection to bap jurisdiction untimely