be corrected pursuant to Rule 60(a) is that the former consist of blunders in execution whereas the latter consists of instances where the court changes its mind, either because it made a legal or factual mistake in making its original determination, or because on second thought it has decided to exercise its discretion in a manner different from the way it was exercised in the original determination. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, a proper Rule 60(a) order involves the purely ministerial act of correcting a clerical mistake; it does not alter the substantive rights of the parties or resolve any of the disputes in the case. Such an order should not be considered final. See Elliott v. Four Seasons Props. (In re Frontier Props., Inc.), 979 F.2d 1358, 1363 (9th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>) resolves and seriously affects substantive
holding that a bankruptcy courts sale order is a final order for res judicata purposes holding that a bankruptcy order is not final unless it 1 holding that a bankruptcy court order denying a trustees claim to immunity was final and appealable under the collateral order doctrine holding that a district court judgment is not a final judgment appealable by the defendant unless it includes the final adjudication and the final sentence holding that bankruptcy court order that a stay applied to a particular party was a final order and noting that bankruptcy court orders lifting or denying relief from an automatic stay are final for purposes of appeal