a writ of mandamus, and we dismiss for lack of jurisdiction their appeal of the JPML Order. B. MDL Court Remand Orders Appellants contend that the MDL Court erred in determining which claims were remanded to the transferor courts under the JPML Order. They argue that the MDL Court exceeded its authority in deciding which claims were remanded. They also argue that the MDL Court was inconsistent in determining which claims were remanded to the transferor courts under the JPML Order. They made neither argument to the MDL Court. Generally, arguments not raised in the district court will not be considered for the first time on appeal. Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471, 487, 128 S.Ct. 2605, 171 L.Ed.2d 570 (2008); see also Pinney v. Nokia, Inc., 402 F.3d 430, 452 (4th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). We see no reason to depart from our general
holding that appellant waived issue by failing to raise it in opening brief holding the appellant waived the issue of return of property by failing to raise it following trial or sentencing for the underlying crimes holding that the defendant waived an argument by failing to raise it in his appellants brief holding that plaintiffs had waived the issue of remand by failing to raise it with the jpml or the district court holding that a defendant waived a sentencing issue by failing to object in district court