motions-should the filing of such a motion constitute sanctionable conduct”) (citations omitted). 25 . “Any attorney or other person admitted to conduct cases in any court of the United States or any Territory thereof who so multiplies the proceedings in any case unreasonably and vexatiously may be required by the court to satisfy personally the excess costs, expenses and attorneys’ fees reasonably incurred because of such conduct.” 28 U.S.C. § 1927 (West 2004). 26 .Courts are split as to the applicability of 1927 to the bankruptcy court because 1927 applies to cases “in any court of the United States.... ” "While an argument can be made that a bankruptcy court lacks the authority to impose sanctions under 1927 (see, e.g., In re Courtesy Inns, Ltd., 40 F.3d 1084, 1086 (10th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>)), the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
holding that bankruptcy courts are not within the contemplation of 1927 holding that the bankruptcy courts as compared to state courts have exclusive jurisdiction to determine issues of dischargeability under the bankruptcy code holding issues within scope of administrative hearing are within the reviewing courts purview holding that a lawsuit alleging malpractice by an accountant in a bankruptcy case was a core matter within a bankruptcy courts jurisdiction holding that bankruptcy jurisdiction is not within section 5 of the fourteenth amendment