ancillary jurisdiction is appropriate when necessary “to enable the court'to function successfully, that is, to manage its proceedings, vindicate its authority, and effectuate its de-crees_”). Far from assisting Faust, the Supreme Court’s Kokkonen. decision supports the Ninth Circuit’s assertion of jurisdiction. Moreover, Faust is precluded from collaterally attacking the Ninth Circuit’s decision to adjudicate the validity of the settlement agreement. That issue was before the Ninth Circuit. Having raised the issue of the settlement agreement to justify the reinstatement of his appeal and having argued its validity in that court, Faust cannot now challenge the Ninth Circuit’s decision in the Court of Federal Claims. See Stoll v. Gottlieb, 305 U.S. 165, 59 S.Ct. 134, 83 L.Ed. 104 (1938) (<HOLDING>). If Faust doubted the correctness of that
holding that the doctrine of res judicata is applicable to defenses that could have been raised in a prior action holding that res judicata applies in deportation proceedings holding that res judicata applies when the question of jurisdiction is raised and determined holding res judicata also applies to those in privity with parties holding that the doctrine of res judicata applies to deportation proceedings