the same. Accordingly, the court need not address the merits of appellant’s substantive claims. 4 . In his appellate brief, appellant concedes— and this court agrees—that Section 1334(c)(2)'s mandatory abstention provisions are inapplicable in this case, because this matter includes claims that pertain to “core” bankruptcy functions. See In re SPI Commc’ns & Mktg., Inc., 114 B.R. 14, 18 (N.D.N.Y.1990) (affirming a bankruptcy court’s exercise of jurisdiction over a claim dealing with an attorney's alleged malpractice in a bankruptcy proceeding because the claims were "core proceedings” that "arose post-petition” and "would not exist but for the Debtor’s bankruptcy petitions”); see also In re Ben Cooper, 896 F.2d 1394, 1400 (2d Cir.1990) (quoting In re Wood, 825 F.2d 90 (5th Cir.1987)) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, the court limits its analysis to
holding that a motion to enforce bankruptcy sale order is a core proceeding and citing 11 usc  105a as the section which gives the bankruptcy court the power and the jurisdiction to enforce its valid orders  holding that a proceeding that by its nature could arise only in the context of a bankruptcy case is a core matter subject to the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court holding that a lawsuit alleging malpractice by an accountant in a bankruptcy case was a core matter within a bankruptcy courts jurisdiction holding that the bankruptcy court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over counterclaims asserted by the bankruptcy estate against a creditor where the claim is a state law action independent of the federal bankruptcy law and not necessarily resolvable by a ruling on the creditors proof of claim in the bankruptcy emphasis added holding that bankruptcy court may issue proposed findings and conclusions in a core proceeding over which the bankruptcy court does not have constitutional authority