are discrete judicial units. See La. World Exposition, Inc. v. Fed. Ins. Co. (In re La. Would Exposition, Inc.), 832 F.2d 1391, 1396 (5th Cir. 1987); Smith v. Seaside Lanes (In re Moody), 825 F.2d 81, 85 (5th Cir. 1987); see also United States v. Peel, 595 F.3d 763, 768-69 (7th Cir. 2010) (“An adversary proceeding is thus part of the bankruptcy but it is not the bankruptcy case itself, as illustrated by the fact that the dismissal of an adversary proceeding is an appealable final order even though the bankruptcy case continues.”). Accordingly, the district court correctly refused to treat the notice of appeal in the main bankruptcy case as a notice of appeal in the adversary proceeding. See, e.g., In re Taylor, 98 CIV. 9205 (DC), 1999 WL 777955, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 1999) (<HOLDING>). Likewise, the amended statement of issues and
holding that the longer appeal period from a judgment controlled over the shorter appeal period in a certiorari proceeding when the two proceedings were consolidated in the district court and the certiorari proceeding was not an independent proceeding holding that a workers compensation proceeding is a legal proceeding holding that while an original bankruptcy proceeding where the state is not named as a defendant is not a suit an adversary proceeding directly against the state would be holding that a notice of appeal filed in an adversary proceeding could not appeal the main proceeding holding that where an action is brought by the debtors at the initial proceeding the appeal of that action is not a continuing proceeding against the debtors