legal fees) upon parties but not attorneys.” Id. at *4. Appellants now ask us to reverse the district court’s decision. II. The statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), states in relevant part: “An order remanding [an erroneously removed] case may require payment of just costs and any actual expenses, including attorney fees, incurred as a result of removal.” The statute, however, does not state expressly who may be required to make such payment. Appellants contend that both removing parties and their lawyers are liable, while appel-lees assert that only removing parties are liable. As of yet, no circuit court has confronted this issue, and the district courts that have addressed it are badly divided. Compare Creek Ventures, LLC v. World Parts, LLC, 2004 WL 1166642, at *4 (W.D.N.Y. Apr. 14, 2004) (<HOLDING>); Marketplace Illustrated Inc. v. Intrex
holding that apprendi does not apply on collateral review holding that  1447c does not apply to counsel holding that title ii does not apply to the states holding that apprendi does not apply retroactively holding that the confrontation clause does not apply to the sentencing hearing