applies in reviewing findings of bad faith. See, e.g., Dunes Hotel Assoc. v. Hyatt Corp., 245 B.R. 492, 496 (D.S.C. 2000) (citing Marsch v. Marsch, 36 F.3d 825, 828 (9th Cir.1994)). An award of sanctions is reviewed using an abuse of discretion standard. See In re Weiss, 111 F.3d 1159, 1170 (4th Cir.1997). A court abuses its discretion if it bases its order for sanctions on “an erroneous view of the law or on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence.” Id. IV. The Court considers Appellees’ Motion to Dismiss Appeal As Moot, and concludes, under Fobian v. Storage Technology Corp., 164 F.3d 887 (4th Cir.1999),that the Bankruptcy Court lacked jurisdiction to rule on Melkersen’s Motion for Relief from Judgment, given that the present appeal was pending in this Court. Id. at 890-91 (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, Appellees’ Motion to Dismiss
holding that an appellate court should not undertake to review whether a plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted when the only motion filed and the only motion on appeal was the trial courts grant of summary judgment holding without extended discussion that even if the district court should have construed the petitioners motion under 18 usc  3582c2 as a rule 60b motion the court would nonetheless have had to recharacterize the rule 60b motion as an sshp holding that a grant of a tr 60b motion requires notice to the opposing party and a hearing holding that a lower court cannot grant a rule 60b motion after an appeal has been filed unless the appellate court grants a limited remand upon the trial court entering a memorandum indicating its inclination to grant the rule 60b motion holding that while a district court lacks jurisdiction to deny a 60b motion while an appeal is pending it can certify that it will grant a 60b motion if the court of appeals remands the case for that purpose