(D.C.Cir.1992), vacated and remanded for reconsideration, — U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 3026, 125 L.Ed.2d 714 (1993). 5 . In its brief to the Court of Appeals, the government requested the following: The District Court’s holding that it has jurisdiction should be reversed; the orders and decisions on appeal should be reversed and vacated for want of jurisdiction; and the District Court should be instructed specifically to vacate its orders and decisions and to dismiss the Complaint for want of jurisdiction. Government's "Brief on Remand From the Supreme Court,” at 10. 6 . The Court agrees with the Judge Edward Garcia's reasoning in his order dated November 22, 1994 in Francisco Naranjo-Aguilera, et al., v. United States Immigration and Naturalization Service, et at, Civ. No. 91-1462 (D.C.Cal.)
holding that bankruptcy courts order was final where is was labeled as a final judgment and was clearly intended to serve as denial of relief sought the order determined the substantive rights at issue there was no indication in the record that the court intended to take further action and no party argued that any further action by the court was to occur holding that mere entry of a remand order divests a federal court of jurisdiction even where no certified copy of the order was mailed to a state court holding that a remand should be limited to cases in which further action must be taken by the district court or in which the appellate court has no way open to it to affirm or reverse the district courts action under review holding that the fourth circuit has jurisdiction to review a district courts sua sponte remand order even when that remand order is styled as a remand for lack of subject matter jurisdiction if the order was in fact based on the procedural insufficiency of the notice of removal holding that district court has no jurisdiction to take further action where there was no remand order