Campbell’s Foliage admits it did not move for vacatur based on any of the grounds listed in § 10, the judge did not err by denying the motion to vacate the arbitration award; we affirm. AFFIRMED. 1 . The 2008 Crop Year covered June 1, 2007, through May 31, 2008. 2 . 7 U.S.C. § 1501. 3 . The RCIC argues for the first time on appeal that Campbell’s Foliage had waived its right to judicial review by failing to adhere to other contract terms. "It is well-settled that we will generally refuse to consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal.” Ramirez v. Sec’y, U.S. Dep’t of Transp., 686 F.3d 1239, 1249 (11th Cir.2012). In addition, resolving RCIC’s argument would require us to engage in impermissible fact finding. See Norelus v. Denny’s, Inc., 628 F.3d 1270, 1293 (11th Cir.2010)
holding that it is not an appellate courts function to make findings of fact holding remand proper on circuit courts own motion in a workers compensation case where the commission failed to make essential findings of fact because to hold otherwise would in such cases make the determination of the rights of the parties turn upon the neglect of the commission to make essential findings of fact or require the appellate court to make the omitted findings of fact which our statute forbids holding because defendant does not argue in his brief that these findings of fact are not supported by    evidence in the record this court is bound by the trial courts findings of fact recognizing appellate courts must not make fact findings holding failure to make explicit findings of fact and conclusions of law did not preclude meaningful appellate review