Id. Indeed, the district court concluded that “[the bankruptcy court] properly held that its jurisdiction to interpret and enforce its sale order ... is historic and unimpeded by Stern v. Marshall or other recent developments in the law.” Id. (internal citations and quotations omitted). The district court affirmed the' bankruptcy court’s decision and concluded that the bankruptcy court had properly exercised its jurisdiction in issuing the injunction. Id. at *5-6. Other courts — including the Supreme Court — have also held that a bankruptcy court maintains jurisdiction to interpret and enforce its own prior orders, and that a court’s enforcement of its prior order is a “core” matter. See, e.g., Travelers Indent. Co. v. Bailey, 557 U.S. 137, 151, 129 S.Ct. 2195, 174 L.Ed.2d 99 (2009) (<HOLDING>); Luan Inv. S.E. v. Franklin 145 Corp. (In re
holding that the trial court had continuing jurisdiction over all subsequent custody orders once the trial court acquired jurisdiction holding that trial court is without authority to modify a settlement agreement but may enforce and interpret it holding that the bankruptcy court plainly had jurisdiction to interpret and enforce its own prior orders holding that a motion to enforce bankruptcy sale order is a core proceeding and citing 11 usc  105a as the section which gives the bankruptcy court the power and the jurisdiction to enforce its valid orders  holding a bankruptcy court is empowered to reopen a bankruptcy case on its own motion under 11 usc  105a