Roofing & Sheet Metal Servs., Inc. v. La Quinta Motor Inns, Inc., 689 F.2d 982, 988 n. 10 (11th Cir.1982); Starnes v. McGuire, 512 F.2d 918, 924 (D.C.Cir.1974) (en banc); see also Manchester v. U.S. Org. Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force of Mid-Atl. Region, 900 F.2d 253 (4th Cir.1990) (table). 5 . In re McBryde, 117 F.3d 208, 221 (5th Cir.1997) (stating that we lack mandamus authority over district courts in other circuits); see also Warrick, 70 F.3d at 737 (concluding that court of appeals lacks power to compel out-of-circuit court to return a case). 6 .See In re Warrick, 70 F.3d 736, 740 (2d Cir.1995); Town of N. Bonneville, Wash. v. U.S. Dist. Court, W. Dist. of Wash., 732 F.2d 747, 752 (9th Cir.1984); In re Sosa, 712 F.2d 1479, 1480 & n. 1 (D.C.Cir.1983); In re 512 F.2d 918 at 924 (<HOLDING>). 9 .Because we find that petitioners’ had a
holding that at this stage of the proceedings review is limited to a determination of whether the circuit court afforded due process and whether the court observed the essential requirements of law holding that preservation for review requires a fair ruling or decision by the district court in order to provide the lower court with an opportunity to correct any mistake give the opposing party an opportunity to demonstrate why the district court should rule in its favor and create a record which enables this court to make informed decisions holding a circuit courts authority to grant a new trial is so necessary to the judicial process and so essential to fair trials that its existence is a necessary incident to the exercise of judicial power by the circuit court holding that a transfer order issued by a district court in another circuit is reviewable only in the circuit of the transferor district court holding that it is essential that procedures be adopted and observed that will provide plaintiffs a fair opportunity to seek review in the transferor circuit prior to the physical transfer of the record