issue. The issues before this court are our appellate jurisdiction to review the remand order, and whether the district court abused its discretion in remanding the case. For the reasons stated below, we resolve both issues affirmatively. II. Discussion First, this court’s jurisdiction to review a remand order depends upon the district court’s stated grounds for remand. Tillman v. CSX Transp., Inc., 929 F.2d 1023, 1026 (5th Cir.1991). Whereas appellate review of a remand order for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is proscribed by 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d), an appellate court may review a remand order issued as a matter of discretion pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201. See Quackenbush v. Allstate Ins. Co., 517 U.S. 706, 711-12, 116 S.Ct. 1712, 135 L.Ed.2d 1 (1996) (<HOLDING>). Here, the district court’s discretionary
holding that a nonparty may appeal an order of criminal contempt arising out of a pending action under 28 usc  1291 holding that remand orders are also appealable orders under 28 usc  1291 holding remand orders not subsumed under statute barring review of remand orders based on defect in removal or on lack of subject matter jurisdiction may be appealed pursuant to 28 usc  1291 holding that an abstentionbased remand is reviewable under 28 usc  1291 as a discretionary refusal to adjudicate holding that order denying motion to dismiss a bankruptcy petition is final under 28 usc  1291