violated the standards contained in the •IHCA.” (Dep’t Declaratory Op. at 47 (Attached to Appellees’ Letter to the Court Dated May 11, 2015).) In other words, “whether Indemnity properly retained or received certain service charges paid by Exchange subscribers for certain installment premium payment plans, late or returned premium payments, and policy re-instatements.” (Id.) In sum, because the District Court’s referral order does not necessarily bring an end to the federal litigation, it is not a final order for purposes of section 1291. See Rickman Bros., 953 F.2d at 1443 (noting that, unlike the typical primary jurisdiction case, abstention orders are final because they end the federal courts’ role in the litigation); see also In re Kozeny, 236 F.3d 615, 619 (10th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). III. In light of the foregoing, the appeal is
holding that federal district courts lack jurisdiction to review a final state court decision in a particular case holding nonsuit does not violate bankruptcy stay because it is a termination of the case against the debtor recognizing that although the foreign action would resolve a central issue in the federal case because termination of the foreign case would not necessarily end the federal litigation the district courts stay order was not final holding that the district court lacked authority to enforce a foreign judgment where the plaintiff filed only an affidavit describing the foreign judgment and not a certified copy of the judgment itself in the first instance holding that fedrcrimp 6e would prevent disclosure of witnesss testimony to foreign officials thereby negating fear of foreign prosecution and alternatively that the fifth amendment provides no shelter  against incrimination in a foreign jurisdiction where federal domestic immunity has been granted