Whether 11 U.S.C. 362(b)(4) applies to a Debtor's appeal of a final regulatory action

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Whether 11 U.S.C. 362(b)(4), the police and regulatory power exception to the automatic stay of bankruptcy, applies to a Debtor’s appeal of a final regulatory action and whose bankruptcy estate includes the sub. ject matter of the appeal? Whether violations of the automatic stay of bank_ ruptcy are void or voidable? Whether the voluntary surrender of an insurance producer license in the absence of any formal or infor; . mal, final Virginia administrative agency proceeding that included fact finding or resolution of disputed facts, administrative charges, any action, admissions of guilt, findings of fact, conclusions of law or Order is the final disposition of an adverse administrative action within the ambit of the Graham-Leach-Bliley : Act’s Insurance Producer Licensing Model Act Section 17: Reporting of Actions as codified in all 50 states, in particular in the Annotated Code of Maryland, Insur. ance Article, Section 10-126(f)? Whether the Maryland Insurance Administration ; had authority to assert original jurisdiction and try Pe. titioner de novo under Maryland law for acts that oc, curred in Virginia? = : , Whether the law of Double Jeopardy, Rule of Len. ity and Doctrine of Merger apply to an administrative _ proceeding where the statute expressly criminalizes : violations and contains a criminal penalty? | gus OE TID ii QUESTIONS PRESENTED Continued Whether the Dual Sovereignty exception to the Double Jeopardy Clause applies to regulatory actions by two state insurance regulatory agencies, and if so, whether the Court should overrule the Dual Sovereignty exception to the Double Jeopardy Clause? Whether the Hearing Officer violated Petitioner’s procedural rights and thus committed reversible error when she summarily revoked Petitioner’s insurance producer license, finding that Petitioner had committed fraud or other dishonest conduct without the benefit of a full evidentiary hearing to determine whether Petitioner had the requisite intent to commit the fraud ; or dishonest conduct alleged by the Maryland Insurance Administration? Whether the Circuit Court erred when it denied Petitioner’s Motion for Leave to Offer Additional Evidence? Whether the Maryland Court of Appeals abused its discretion by denying Petitioner’s motion for an additional extension of time and dismissed her appeal for ; failure to timely file the brief? Whether the Maryland Court of Appeals violated Petitioner’s substantive and procedural Due Process : rights by issuing the mandate 20 days prematurely, denying Petitioner’s Motion to Reconsider, and Petitioner’s Motion to Deem the Motion to Reconsider Timely Filed?