Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): affirming the bankruptcy court’s denial of a motion to dismiss the Riffle’s bankruptcy petition, was a “final” decision of the district court within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 158(d) that conferred jurisdiction on this Court. Regardless of the finality of that decision, jurisdiction was proper by the time this Court heard the appeal. When Community Bank filed its notice of appeal of the district court’s judgment on September 9, 2008, the bankruptcy court had already confirmed the Riffles’ Chapter 13 bankruptcy plan, issuing its order on June 20, 2008. Such a confirmation order is a final order that may be appealed. See Maiorino v. Branford Sav. Bank, 691 F.2d 89, 91 (2d Cir.1982) (suggesting in dicta that such an order is final); cf. In re Layo, 460 F.3d 289, 293 (2d Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>); In re Am. Preferred Prescription, Inc., 255 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that an unappealed contempt order by a bankruptcy court is a final judgment on the merits for res judicata purposes (B) holding that an order striking a standing trustees motion to convert a chapter 13 petition to a chapter 7 is interlocutory not final (C) holding that an unappealed order is a final judgment on the merits for res judicata purposes (D) holding that an order not denominated a judgment is not final for purposes of appeal (E) holding that chapter 13 order is a final judgment on the merits for preclu sion analysis purposes
Output (English): holding that an order striking a standing trustees motion to convert a chapter 13 petition to a chapter 7 is interlocutory not final