The Court considered whether to reopen a closed chapter 7 no-asset bankruptcy case to allow the debtor to amend his schedules to add two creditors, whom the debtor had not scheduled or noticed during his case.  The Court noted that the Bankruptcy Code, in particular sections 523 and 727, addresses the effect of the entry of a discharge order on unscheduled debts.  The Court found that the debtor had not met his burden to prove compelling circumstances to reopen for the purpose of scheduling debts he did not previously disclose on his bankruptcy filings.  Because reopening to amend the schedules would not alter the effect of sections 523 and 727, the Court determined that reopening would be futile and a waste of judicial resources.  The Court denied the motion to reopen.