SUMMARY ORDER

challenges the district court’s judgment affirming the bankruptcy court’s order awarding him attorney’s fees. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

We review a bankruptcy court’s award of attorney’s fees for abuse of discretion. See In re Bayshore Wire Prods. Corp., 209 F.3d 100, 103 (2d Cir. 2000). A bankruptcy court abuses its discretion when “(1) its decision rests on an error of law (such as application of the wrong legal principle) or a clearly erroneous factual finding, or (2) its decision — though not necessarily the product of a legal error or a clearly erroneous factual finding — cannot be located within the range of permissible decisions.” Zervos v. Verizon N.Y., Inc., 252 F.3d 163, 169 (2d Cir. 2001) (footnotes omitted).

An independent review of the record and relevant authority reveals that the district court properly affirmed the bankruptcy court’s order. The record amply supports the district court’s conclusions bankruptcy court acted well within its discretion when it determined that Ressler (1) lacked the authority to represent the estate of Arlene Gold after the appointment of a new executor who did not retain Ressler to represent Arlene Gold’s estate; and (2) failed to adequately record his time, had a conflict of interest, and violated the court’s rules governing compensation requests. See 11 U.S.C. § 330(a)(1)(A), (3) (court may award reasonable compensation for an attorney’s “actual, necessary services rendered,” “taking into account all relevant factors”); see also id. § 330(a)(2) (court may award “compensation that is less than the amount of compensation that is requested”). We further note that Ap-pellee alerted this Court that, after briefing in this appeal was completed, Ressler resigned from the Connecticut bar. If the Appellee believes that Ressler’s resignation affects his ability to recover fees, it must raise that argument in the bankruptcy court in the first instance.

We have examined the remainder of Ressler’s arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court for substantially the same reasons as stated in its June 18,2015 decision.