“orders approving the sale of property other than property resulting from claims brought by the estate against persons who have not filed claims against the estate.” Id. at *7. Thus, the district court held that the bankruptcy court had “statutory jurisdiction to enforce its own orders ... [and that] Hudson’s injunction motion was a ‘core’ matter under the plain language of the Bankruptcy Code.” Id. Furthermore, citing the Stem opinion, the district court concluded that Stem’s holding did not disturb the bankruptcy court’s jurisdict rie Retail, Inc.), 304 F.3d 223, 229-30 (2d Cir.2002) (concluding that core jurisdiction exists in a dispute between non-debtors over interpretation of the bankruptcy court’s sale order); In re Marcus Hook Dev. Park, Inc., 943 F.2d 261, 266-67 (3d Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>); In re Motors Liquidation Co., 513 B.R. 467,
holding that the bankruptcy court plainly had jurisdiction to interpret and enforce its own prior orders holding a bankruptcy court is empowered to reopen a bankruptcy case on its own motion under 11 usc  105a holding that a proceeding that by its nature could arise only in the context of a bankruptcy case is a core matter subject to the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court 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 that bankruptcy court has discretionary power pursuant to 11 usc  105a to order preconfirmation plan payments in a chapter 12 proceeding