by the terms of subsection (a) of this section, such debt is not dischargeable in the case under this title. The purpose of § 523(b) is to make dis-chargeable those debts that were not discharged in a prior case, but which would have been discharged had the prior case been filed at a later time. Saler v. Saler (In re Saler), 205 B.R. 737, 749 (Bankr. E.D.Pa.1997), aff'd, 217 B.R. 166 (E.D.Pa. 1998). Thus, given this purpose, to now adopt the position that a bankruptcy case, solely on the basis of a change of circumstances, may be reopened to determine the dischargeability of student loan obligation would greatly weaken the statutory mechanism Congress has set up under § 523(b) to handle such matters. Compare Sobh v. Empire of America (In re Sobh), 61 B.R. 576, 579 (E.D.Mich.1986) (<HOLDING>). In the same vein, adopting the position put
holding that a  2255 petition seeking only reinstatement of the right to a direct appeal does not render any later petition a second or successive petition under the aedpa holding that because the petitioner had already filed a rule 371 petition he was barred from submitting a subsequent petition under that rule and his petition was subject to dismissal on that basis regardless of the label he placed on it holding that while  523b allows for a redetermination of a discharge of a student loan obligation in a subsequent petition it does not foreclose a redetermination under the same petition holding that untimely petition for postconviction petition divests trial court of jurisdiction holding that a subsequent petition may be filed upon a showing of a change in circumstances