the court abused its discretion by issuing the order. See Brickyard Assocs. v. Auburn Venture Partners, 626 A.2d 930, 934 (Me.1993). DiPietro does contend, however, that Faith Temple is not entitled to compounding post-judgment interest, therefore implicitly arguing that the court erred in calculating the amount of the attachment to be $163,091.48. [¶ 37] “Entitlement to interest on judgments is derived from statute.” Walsh v. Cusack, 2008 ME 74, ¶ 4, 946 A.2d 414 (quotation marks omitted). Here, the controlling statute is 28 U.S.C.S. § 1961 (LEXIS through Pub. L. No. 114-91), which provides for compounding interest on judgments in “civil ease[s]” in federal “district court,” including bankruptcy cases. See Lassman v. Keefe (In re Keefe), 401 B.R. 520, 526 (1st Cir. B.A.P. 2009) (<HOLDING>); see also Ocasek v. Manville Corp. Asbestos
holding that 28 usc  1961a applies to bankruptcy court judgments because a bankruptcy court is a unit of the district court holding that the district court sitting in review of the decision of the bankruptcy court erred in concluding that plaintiffs failure to pay over taxes was willful because the bankruptcy court had made no findings on willfulness we remanded for bankruptcy court findings holding a bankruptcy court is not a court of the united states entitled to waive filing fees pursuant to 28 usc section 1915a holding that claims under 11 usc  362h must be brought in the bankruptcy court rather than in the district court which only has appellate jurisdiction over bankruptcy cases holding that creditor lacked appellate standing to appeal order of bankruptcy court absent permission of bankruptcy court