1948 (quoting Roell v. Withrow, 538 U.S. 580, 590, 123 S.Ct. 1696, 155 L.Ed.2d 775 (2003)). The original PACA claimants that filed in federal district court consented to adjudication of their claims, which necessarily implicated the entire PACA trust, in bankruptcy court. Claimants like Kingdom Fresh later filed' PACA claims in this proceeding in which the docket sheet put them on notice that the original filers had consented to bankruptcy court adjudication. They raised no constitutional objection when joining the case. This consent — express from some parties and implied from others — thus vested the bankruptcy court with jurisdiction to preside over the PACA claims even if doing so posed a Stern problem. See Wellness Int’l Network, Ltd. v. Sharif, 617 Fed. Appx. 589 (7th Cir.2015) (<HOLDING>). B The scope of the bankruptcy court’s
holding on remand from the supreme court that appellant had forfeited a stem claim when he did not raise it until his reply brief in the district court appeal of the bankruptcy order he was challenging holding arguments first raised in reply brief are forfeited holding that arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief are forfeited holding an appellant who raised an issue for the first time in his reply brief waived the claim holding that the appellant waived his claim on appeal because he failed to address that claim in either his application for a coa or his brief on appeal