bankruptcy court has looked to “compelling circumstances” and the In re Lett factors proposed by Kadlecek, that same court has reiterated that those factors are not mandatory. See, e.g., In re Scott, 260 B.R. 375, 381-82 (Bankr.D.S.C.2001). As such, it appears, and Kadlecek in fact concedes, that there is no test that must, or must not, be used by a bankruptcy court in determining whether cause exists to grant retroactive relief from an automatic stay. Besides In re Wiencko, the Fourth Circuit has never considered a case that involves the retroactive annulment of an automatic stay. The In re Wiencko decision has no precedential value, as it is unpublished; it is nevertheless valuable for its persuasive reasoning. See Collins v. Pond Creek Mining Co., 468 F.3d 213, 219 (4th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>). The court’s conclusion that the application
holding that traditional allocation of burden of proof to the party challenging the decisions applies to decisions under the tca holding that this courts review of board decisions is limited to final orders or final decisions recognizing that we ordinarily do not accord precedential value to our unpublished decisions and that such decisions are entitled only to the weight they generate by the persuasiveness of their reasoning citation omitted holding that unpublished opinions are of persuasive value at best and not precedential holding that unpublished opinions have precedential effect