960 (7th Cir.2003) (internal citations omitted). Neshewat argues that Salem forfeited the right to appeal this issue to the district court and consequently to this court when he did not file a notice of appeal within 10 days of Judge Sonderby’s order rejecting his “conversion” — a move he thinks was required by Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 8002. In the proper circumstances, this rule is more than merely procedural; it is jurisdictional. See In re Bond, 254 F.3d 669, 673 (7th Cir.2001). If, for example, Salem had failed to file a notice days of the final order tion, and he could not show “excusable neglect,” then the district court would have had no power to hear Salem’s appeal. See Fed. R. Bankr.P. 8002(c)(2) (permitting short extension of time for “excusable ne 0th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>); Matter of Kutner, 656 F.2d 1107, 1111-12 (5th
recognizing that a debt ors sequential filing of a chapter 7 petition and then a chapter 13 petition is the socalled chapter 20  holding that the conversion of a chapter 7 petition to a chapter 13 petition was not final until the plan itself was approved holding that facts as they existed on the date of the original bankruptcy petition not on the date of conversion from chapter 13 to chapter 7 bankruptcy applied holding tort action accruing after original chapter 7 petition not part of estate when case converted to chapter 13 and then back to chapter 7 holding that an order striking a standing trustees motion to convert a chapter 13 petition to a chapter 7 is interlocutory not final