this Court has jurisdiction only if the underlying bankruptcy court order is in fact final. See In re Flor, 79 F.3d 281, 283 (2d Cir.1996) (“For purposes of § 158(d), a determination of the district court is not ‘final’ unless the underlying order of the bankruptcy court is final.”); see also In re Lievsay, 118 F.3d 661, 662 (9th Cir.1997) (“If the underlying bankruptcy court decision is interlocutory, the BAP order affirming or reversing it is also interlocutory.”). The parties conced that a district court’s appellate order was final and appealable, even assuming the underlying bankruptcy court order was not final at the time it was appealed, because the bankruptcy case had been dismis Ct. 2882, 115 L.Ed.2d 1048 (1991); cf. Clausen v. Sea-3, Inc., 21 F.3d 1181, 1184 (1st Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). Here, regardless whether the bankruptcy
holding that entry of final judgment on a claim in a multiparty action pursuant to rule 54b should clearly articulate the reasons and factors underlying the decision to grant 54b certification holding that when a court of appeals has jurisdiction on interlocutory appeal the scope of appellate review is not limited to the precise question certified by the district court because the district courts order not the certified question is brought before the court holding that by virtue of fed rapp p 4a2 appellants premature notice of appeal ripened when the district court certified its december 31 1992 amended judgment pursuant to fedrcivp 54b holding premature notice of appeal was treated as entered on date of entry of final judgment holding timely notice of appeal under fed rapp p 4a is jurisdictional