that Tax Ease, as the transferee of the tax lien and a subrogee of the taxing authorities’ rights, holds a tax claim for purposes of § 511. The district court therefore correctly held that the bankruptcy court could not modify the interest rate due on the claim. The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. 1 . 28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1). 2 . Id. § 158(a)(3). 3 . 212 F.3d 277, 282 (5th Cir.2000); 28 U.S.C. § 158(d)(1) (“The courts of appeals shall have jurisdiction of appeals from all final decisions, judgments, orders, and decrees entered under subsections (a) and (b) of this section.”). 4 . 975 F.2d 1168, 1171 (5th Cir.1992). 5 . See Bartee, 212 F.3d at 282. 6 . Id. (quoting In re On, 180 F.3d 656, 659 (5th Cir.1999)). 7 . England, 975 F.2d at 1172. 8 . See, e.g., Bartee, 212 F.3d at 283 (<HOLDING>). 9 . 602 F.3d 417, 421 (5th Cir.2010). 10 .
holding that where an objection was made and trial courts ruling was treated as conclusive by state and defense counsel there was no need for further objections when evidence was presented to jury holding that an order was interlocutory in nature despite the trial courts certification of the order as a final appealable judgment holding that bankruptcy court order that a stay applied to a particular party was a final order and noting that bankruptcy court orders lifting or denying relief from an automatic stay are final for purposes of appeal holding that district court has no jurisdiction to take further action where there was no remand order holding that bankruptcy courts order was final where is was labeled as a final judgment and was clearly intended to serve as denial of relief sought the order determined the substantive rights at issue there was no indication in the record that the court intended to take further action and no party argued that any further action by the court was to occur