Case Name: In the Matter of Lucas James DESSELLE, Debtor. Lucas James Desselle, Appellee, v. Cottonport Bank, Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-02-07
Citations: 166 F. App'x 134
Docket Number: No. 05-30128
Parties: In the Matter of Lucas James DESSELLE, Debtor. Lucas James Desselle, Appellee, v. Cottonport Bank, Appellant.
Judges: Before GARWOOD, BENAVIDES, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 166
Pages: 134–134

Head Matter:
In the Matter of Lucas James DESSELLE, Debtor. Lucas James Desselle, Appellee, v. Cottonport Bank, Appellant.
No. 05-30128.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided Feb. 7, 2006.
Bradley L. Drell, Gold, Weems, Bruser, Sues & Rundell, Alexandria, LA, for Appellee.
Lucy G. Sikes, Alexandria, LA, for Appellant.
Before GARWOOD, BENAVIDES, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The Appellant asks whether the district court properly granted a motion to withdraw the reference, transferring this case from the bankruptcy court to the district court. This Court has held that a district court's decision to withdraw a reference is not an appealable final judgment. In re Lieb, 915 F.2d 180, 184 (5th Cir.1990). We also held that an order granting or denying a motion to withdraw does not constitute a "collateral order," a narrow exception to the final judgment rule. Id. In re Lieb remains the rule in this circuit. See, e.g., Harvey Specialty & Supply, Inc. v. Anson Flowline Equip. Inc., 434 F.3d 320 n. 18 (5th Cir.2005) (citing In re Lieb and its holding that "a transfer order is not a final judgment and is not immediately appealable").
The Appellant mistakenly relies on In re Aegis Specialty Marketing Inc. of Alabama, 68 F.3d 919 (5th Cir.1995). In re Aegis refers to the finality of a district court order when that court sits as a court of appeal in bankruptcy. Id. at 921. That is not the issue in the present case, as seen by the district court's order withdrawing the reference.
For these reasons we do not have jurisdiction to hear this appeal. Therefore, it is DISMISSED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, this Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.