
    In The Matter of Josephine D. DIMITRI, Debtor. Josephine D. Dimitri, Appellant, v. William C. Garrett, Succession of Granville Semmes, Individually and as executrix of the Succession of William C. Garrett; Debe Garrett Levis, Individually and as executrix of the Succession of William C. Garrett; Billie Garrett Semmes, Individually and as executrix of the Succession of William C. Garrett, Appellees. In The Matter of Josephine D. Dimitri, Debtor. Josephine D. Dimitri, Appellant, v. Granville Semmes, Individually and as executrix of the Succession of William C. Garrett; Debe Garrett Levis, Individually and as executrix of the Succession of William C. Garrett; Billie Garrett Semmes, Individually and as executrix of the Succession of William C. Garrett; William C. Garrett, Succession of, Appellees. In The Matter of Josephine D. Dimitri, Debtor. Josephine D. Dimitri, Appellant, v. Granville Semmes, Individually and as executrix of the Succession of William C. Garrett; Debe Garrett Levis, Individually and as executrix of the Succession of William C. Garrett; Billie Garrett Semmes, Individually and as executrix of the Succession of William C. Garrett; William C. Garrett, Succession of, Appellees.
    No. 04-30145.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Decided Nov. 1, 2004.
    Henry L Klein, Klein Daigle, New Orleans, LA, for Appellant.
    Robert G Stassi, Chehardy, Sherman, Ellis, Breslin, Murray & Reeñe, Metairie, LA, for Appellees.
    Before REAVLEY, BENAVIDES and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

The bankruptcy court properly exercised its powers in lifting the automatic stay arising from a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition filed in bad faith. 11 U.S.C.A. § 105(a); see In re Little Creek Development Co., 779 F.2d 1068, 1071 (5th Cir.1986). Further, the court granted the motion to dismiss, based on bad faith of the filing, as demonstrated by the record. See 11 U.S.C. § 1112(b); see In re Little Creek, 779 F.2d at 1072. The district court was also correct in denying the motions for reconsideration and a new trial. See Brown v. Wright, 588 F.2d 708, 710 (9th Cir.1978); see also Johnston v. Lucas, 786 F.2d 1254, 1257 (5th Cir.1986). Finally, the “NASCO” motion was properly denied as it was without merit. Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 111 S.Ct. 2123, 2132, 115 L.Ed.2d 27 (1991).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     