1114-15 (5th Cir.1986) (affirming monetary sanctions and attorney’s fees imposed on indigent party for his willful refusal to comply with discovery orders). Nor did the district court did err in rejecting Cooper’s argument that penalties should not be incurred from the date of the order. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 62(a), (d). Cooper argues that the district court erred in granting the motion for sanctions during an automatic stay imposed by the bankruptcy court during his bankruptcy proceedings. The district court did not err in holding that the governmental unit exception to the automatic stay applied to district court sanctions order. See Sabre Group, Inc. v. European Am. Travel, Inc., 192 F.3d 126, 1999 WL 683863 at *2 (5th Cir.1999) ; see also Alpern v. Lieb, 11 F.3d 689, 690 (7th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>); In re Berg, 230 F.3d 1165, 1167-68 (9th
holding that a state is immune by virtue of 11 usc  106c from money damages for violating the automatic stay provision of 11 usc  362a holding a claim originally brought by a person who subsequently filed bankruptcy under chapter 11 was not subject to the automatic stay holding rule 11 sanction proceeding was exempt from automatic stay holding judgment in violation of automatic stay void holding that the automatic stay did not bar the filing of a proof of claim where the debtor actively litigated a separate action during the pending bankruptcy proceeding because to permit the automatic stay provision to be used as a trump card played after an unfavorable result was reached  would be inconsistent with the underlying purpose of the automatic stay