interpretation of Stem. The only basis for appellate jurisdiction asserted by ESB is 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), which permits us to hear appeals from “interlocutory orders ... granting, continuing, modifying, refusing or dissolving injunctions, or refusing to dissolve or modify injunctions.” 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). That jurisdiction does not extend to the district court’s remand order, which had no impact on any* injunction. Moreover, even if ESB had asserted jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(d)(1), which allows appeals from “final decisions, judgments, orders, and decrees” of district courts in bankruptcy appeals, the order remanding the case was not an appealable final decision. See COR Route 5 Co. v. Penn Traffic Co. (In re Penn Traffic Co.), 466 F.3d 75, 79 (2d Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>). We do not, however, foreclose the district
holding that 28 usc  1961a applies to bankruptcy court judgments because a bankruptcy court is a unit of the district court holding that order remanding to bankruptcy court for proceedings calling for the exercise of judgment and discretion by the bankruptcy court as opposed to remand for ministerial act is not appealable under 28 usc  158d holding that the appellate court had jurisdiction despite a remand to the bankruptcy court for more specific findings of fact and for further proceedings to apply the correct burden of proof holding that the district courts order refusing to exercise jurisdiction and remanding to the magistrate court for trial was sufficiently final for purposes of appeal and then determining that the remand was in error holding that a bankruptcy court order denying a trustees claim to immunity was final and appealable under the collateral order doctrine