Opinion ID: 162918
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: standard of review

Text: 10 When reviewing the district court's application of our mandate, we consider whether the court abused the limited discretion that our mandate left to it. See United States v. Hicks, 146 F.3d 1198, 1200 (10th Cir.1998) (The mandate rule is a discretion-guiding rule that generally requires trial court conformity with the articulated appellate remand.) (internal quotation marks omitted). `[W]hen the remand is general, however, the district court is free to decide anything not foreclosed by the mandate.' Hicks v. Gates Rubber Co., 928 F.2d 966, 971 (10th Cir. 1991) (quoting 1B S. Moore, J. Lucas, & T. Currier, Moore's Federal Practice § ¶ 0.404[10] (1988)). But cf. Field v. Mans, 157 F.3d 35, 40 (1st Cir.1998) (We review an application of the law of the case de novo.).