its discretion in sanctioning Wilson for his bad faith in violating the past orders. Moreover, the Sandifer III sanction is appropriate in scope. “[T]he sanctioning court must use the least restrictive sanction necessary to deter the inappropriate behavior.” In re First City Bancorporation of Tex. Inc., 282 F.3d 864, 867 (5th Cir.2002). Here, the district court had already sanctioned Wilson in Sandifer II for violating a previous order by striking Wilson as counsel of record for Sandifer II. Because striking Wilson as counsel was not sufficient to deter Wilson from violating the district court’s orders, the court did not abuse its discretion in imposing an additional monetary sanction of $1,000 when Wilson undertook similar behavior in Sandifer III. See Bancorporation, 282 F.3d at 867 (<HOLDING>). Moreover, considering Wilson attempted to
holding juvenile court properly found four colorado department of institutions officials in contempt of court for refusing to accept a juvenile committed to a receiving center and did not abuse its discretion in imposing fines as a sanction holding state action comparable even though it did not seek monetary sanction holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting a transcript of a recording even though defense counsel did not stipulate to its accuracy holding that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a monetary sanction of 25000 after counsel disregarded the courts previous admonishments holding that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in denying the petitioners motion to dismiss under 11 usc  707a