at 358 (in dicta)-, Louquet, 125 B.R. at 268 (citing In re Arnold, 869 F.2d 240 (4th Cir.1989)); In re Wilson, 157 B.R. 389, 390 (Bankr.S.D.Ohio 1993). 9 . Judge Volinn specially concurred in Powers, stating that the Panel did not need to reach the substantial change issue, since the debtor did not dispute her increased income, and the Panel could affirm using either standard. Judge Vol-inn pointed out that other Ninth Circuit cases run contrary to Witkowski, and that the Anderson dicta should be given "due deference." Powers, 202 B.R. at 624. Notwithstanding the insightful concurring opinion in Powers, the Panel addressed the issue of the standard for modification under § 1329 which was before it. Ninth Circuit precedent has been set. In re Ball, 185 B.R. 595, 597 (9th Cir. BAP 1995) (<HOLDING>). 10 . The modified plan, apparently, would
holding that a panel of this court cannot overturn a prior panels decision holding that court is bound by prior panels interpretation of supreme court decision holding that the panel is bound by decisions of prior panels holding that a prior panel decision is binding on subsequent panels holding that decisions by prior panels are binding