With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 1114-15 (5th Cir.1986) (affirming monetary sanctions and attorney’s fees imposed on indigent party for his willful refusal to comply with discovery orders). Nor did the district court did err in rejecting Cooper’s argument that penalties should not be incurred from the date of the order. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 62(a), (d). Cooper argues that the district court erred in granting the motion for sanctions during an automatic stay imposed by the bankruptcy court during his bankruptcy proceedings. The district court did not err in holding that the governmental unit exception to the automatic stay applied to district court sanctions order. See Sabre Group, Inc. v. European Am. Travel, Inc., 192 F.3d 126, 1999 WL 683863 at *2 (5th Cir.1999) ; see also Alpern v. Lieb, 11 F.3d 689, 690 (7th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>); In re Berg, 230 F.3d 1165, 1167-68 (9th

A: holding that a state is immune by virtue of 11 usc  106c from money damages for violating the automatic stay provision of 11 usc  362a
B: holding a claim originally brought by a person who subsequently filed bankruptcy under chapter 11 was not subject to the automatic stay
C: holding judgment in violation of automatic stay void
D: holding rule 11 sanction proceeding was exempt from automatic stay
D.