order on appeal. “Because the district court functions as an appellate court in reviewing bankruptcy decisions, this court is the second appellate court to review bankruptcy court cases.” In re Glados, Inc., 83 F.3d 1360, 1362 (11th Cir.1996). As with any other discovery order, we review “questions concerning the scope or opportunity for discovery for an abuse of discretion.” In re Kiwi Int’l Air Lines, Inc., 344 F.3d 311, 323 (3d Cir.2003) (agreeing “with the District Court that the Bankruptcy Court did not abuse its discretion by denying the trustee’s request for additional discovery”); Brandt v. Wand Partners, 242 F.3d 6, 18-20 (1st Cir.2001) (reviewing discovery orders by the bankruptcy court for abuse of discretion). See also In re Kellogg, 197 F.3d 1116, 1122 (11th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). After reviewing the record, we conclude that
holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying motion for continuance when not in proper affidavit form holding that the district court did not err by concluding that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in denying motion for continuance motion to withdraw and motion for reconsideration and rehearing holding that the court of federal claims did not abuse its discretion in denying as untimely a 10daylate pro se motion for reconsideration holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to strike when movant failed to show prejudice holding that unauthorized motion for rehearing to set aside default heard by trial court will be considered as motion for reconsideration