v. Antonucci (In re Monus), 1995 WL 469694 at *12 (Bankr.N.D.Ohio 1995) (22 days); Ohio Corrugating Co. v. DPAC, Inc. (In re Ohio Corrugating Co.), 91 B.R. 430, 437 (Bankr.N.D.Ohio 1988) (16 days). “The period of time over which retrojection has been approved ranges from a few weeks to several months.” Bartl v. Twardy (In re Claxton), 32 B.R. 224, 232 (Bankr.E.D.Va.1983). Retrojection, however, is not appropriate here given the nearly two-year gap between the Transfer and the Petition Date. “Insolvency determined as of one date may form the basis for the inference that insolvency existed on another date if the dates are relatively close in time and if no significant transactions occurred between the two dates.” Gold v. Laines (In re Laines), 352 B.R. 397, 402 n. 6 (Bankr. E.D.Va.2005) (<HOLDING>); see also Jackson, 318 B.R. at 16-17 (2
holding that january 4 2004 schedules and statement of financial affairs could not be used to infer insolvency as of date of transfers that occurred on march 22 2001 march 26 2001 and december 26 2002 holding the fourteen day provision in rule 35a is jurisdictional and reinstating defendants original sentence when defendant was originally sentenced on march 1st defendant filed a rule 35a motion on march 5th the district court held a hearing on the rule 35 motion on march 29th and resentenced defendant on april 12th holding that the march of time began for the period in which to file a rule 59e motion on the date the court entered an order that was immediately appealable holding that magistrate had substantial basis for determining that probable cause existed where affidavit which recited information received from anonymous tip from informer in february 2007 regarding narcotic activity on unspecified date included several details about defendant and residence that were later confirmed officer found residue that fieldtested positive for marihuana in garbage can located on street directly in front of residence on march 1 2007 officer found marihuana stems seeds and residue in garbage can on march 5 and search warrant was issued on march 6 and executed on march 7 holding that statement about debtor lacking present ability to pay was essentially statement of insolvency