bringing the order within D.C.Code § 11-721(a)(2)(A) (2001), which gives this court jurisdiction over interlocutory orders “granting, continuing, modifying, refusing, or dissolving or refusing to dissolve or modify injunctions.” We conclude that security orders pursuant to D.C.Code § 15-703(b) are not subject to interlocutory appeal as injunctions. The test for whether an interlocutory order is immediately & Dentistry of N.J., 867 F.2d 1455, 1464 (3d Cir.1989) (remarking that “orders attaching security for a judgment ultimately to be rendered have been held not to fall under [28 U.S.C.A. § ] 1292(a)(1), even though such orders have a significant impact on the parties whose property is affected”); Am. Mortgage Corp. v. First Nat’l Mortgage Co., 345 F.2d 527, 528 (7th Cir.1965) (<HOLDING>); Bogosian v. Woloohojian Realty Corp., 923
holding that the distinction between attachments and injunctions has been so long recognized that we are convinced that congress would have provided for interlocutory appeals in cases such as this had it deemed such appeals desirable recognizing that the scope of issues in interlocutory appeals is limited holding that this court has jurisdiction to hear interlocutory appeals in cases involving a sentence of life imprisonment or death holding that a statute providing for interlocutory appeals to be heard in the court where appellate jurisdiction may be vested by law means that this court has appellate jurisdiction over interlocutory appeals in cases where the sentence of life imprisonment or death may be imposed holding that court of appeals may adopt such waiver rule