days prior to the hearing) (emphasis added). II. DISCUSSION First, the Court notes that district courts retain jurisdiction to impose sanctions designed to enforce their own rules, even if they no longer have jurisdiction over the substance of a case. Therefore, “[although a notice of appeal has been filed, this Court has jurisdiction to determine whether sanctions and attorney’s fees are appropriate.” Anderson v. Ind. Sch. Dist. No. 97, No. Civ. 98-2217, 2003 WL 328043, *1 (D.Minn. Feb. 10, 2003). In other words, where the sanctions issues are not before the court of appeals, the district court retains jurisdiction to consider those issues. See id. (citing Harmon v. United States, 101 F.3d 574, 587 (8th Cir.1996)); see also Gundacker v. Unisys Corp., 151 F.3d 842, 848 (8th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>); Perkins v. Gen. Motors Corp., 965 F.2d 597,
holding that when a court of appeals has jurisdiction on interlocutory appeal the scope of appellate review is not limited to the precise question certified by the district court because the district courts order not the certified question is brought before the court holding a new constitutional challenge not raised in district court was not properly before court of appeals holding that where the issue of sanctions was not before the court of appeals when the appeal was filed the district court retained jurisdiction holding issue not properly before the appellate court where appellant fails to demonstrate where in the record an issue was raised in the district court holding that the appellate court had jurisdiction to hear the interlocutory appeal on a restraining order and the district court retained jurisdiction to proceed with the trial