1051, 108 S.Ct. 2817, 100 L.Ed.2d 917 (1988) (granting application to recall and stay Tenth Circuit’s mandate pending Court’s action on petition for certiorari). Thus, both sets of rules create a gap between the time the court’s mandate must issue and the time the party must seek redress from a higher court, and both sets of rules permit a party to obtain a stay pending appeal to a higher court. Both sets of rules are silent, however, as to what happens if the party does not seek the stay until the gap period. Cases addressing a party’s attempt to secure a stay from a circuit court after it has issued its mandate establish that the circuit court must first recall its mandate before it can enter the stay. See, e.g., United States v. Holland, 1 F.3d 454, 455 (7th Cir.1993) (Ripple, J.) (<HOLDING>); Faulkner v. Jones, 66 F.3d 661, 662 (4th
holding that the fourth amendment does not mandate the payment of money by the united states holding that perfection not required for regulation to be reasonable courts task is simply to determine whether regulation is reasonably related to agencys statutory mandate holding that the fourth amendment does not mandate payment and therefore such claims are not within the jurisdiction of the court holding that party who sought stay after mandate had issued first had to show that mandate ought to be recalled and then had to show that recalled mandate should be stayed holding that leave shall be freely given to amend a complaint is a mandate  to be heeded