jurisdictional, but instead are permissive and help guide a circuit court’s discretion. See, e.g., United States v. Tremble, 933 F.2d 925, 928 (11th Cir. 1991) (Generally, “an appellate court will not consider 'a legal issue or theory raised for the ñrst time on appeal. The decision whether to consider such an argument is left to the appellate court’s discretion.” (citations omitted)); Access Now, 385 F.3d at 1332 (“[T]he notion that an appellate court will not consider issues not raised before the district court is not a jurisdictional limitation but merely a rule of practice.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). Exercising its discretion, the Eleventh Circuit has permitted a litigant to pursue a new issue on appeal in limited circumstances. Access Now, 385 F.3d at 1332 (<HOLDING>) (quoting Wright v. Hanna Steel Corp., 270 F.3d
holding that the court will not consider an issue not raised in the district court unless 1 it involves a pure question of law and refusal to consider it would result in a miscarriage of justice 2 the party raising the issue had no opportunity to do so before the district court 3 the interest of substantial justice is at stake 4 the proper resolution is beyond any doubt or 5 the issue presents significant questions of general impact or great public concern holding that court will not consider issue raised for first time on appeal recognizing the general rule that a court of appeals will not consider an issue raised for the first time on appeal recognizing its discretionary authority to depart from the general practice of refusing to consider an issue raised for the first time on appeal such as  where the interest of substantial justice is at stake  or  where the proper resolution is beyond doubt  holding that an issue not raised in the trial court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal