to appear at two scheduled hearings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo the district court’s decision on appeal from a bankruptcy court. Dawson v. Washington Mut. Bank, F.A. (In re Dawson), 390 F.3d 1139, 1145 (9th Cir.2004). We review for abuse of discretion a bankruptcy court’s decision to impose sanctions. Hansbrough v. Birdsell (In re Hercules Enters., Inc.), 387 F.3d 1024, 1027 (9th Cir.2004). We affirm. The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in sanctioning Hale for failing to appear at a hearing set (with Hale’s concurrence) for September 16, 2003, and for also failing to appear at a subsequent “show cause” hearing on October 14, 2003. See Caldwell v. Unified Capital Corp. (In re Rainbow Magazine, Inc.), 77 F.3d 278, 283-85 (9th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). Hale’s conclusory contention that the
recognizing power of bankruptcy court to impose sanctions on parties and counsel who willfully abuse the judicial process but not finding sanctions appropriate against debtor and his attorney for their repeated bankruptcy filings recognizing inherent power of bankruptcy courts to equitably surcharge a debtors exemption to protect integrity of the bankruptcy process and to ensure that debtor does not exempt amount greater than allowed under bankruptcy code holding that bankruptcy courts have inherent power to sanction and affirming sanctions imposed by bankruptcy court against a nonparty holding that the bankruptcy court has the inherent power to award sanctions for badfaith conduct in a bankruptcy court proceeding holding that where no discovery order was violated sanctions could not imposed pursuant to rule 37 but nevertheless upholding the sanction order under the courts inherent power