court’s judgment. His counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), asserting that there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but specifically addressing whether the sentence on remand was reasonable and whether the record demonstrates ineffective assistance of counsel or prosecutorial misconduct. McManus has filed a pro se supplemental brief, raising multiple challenges to his conviction and sentence. The Government has declined to file a response brief. We affirm. Initially, although recognizing our obligations under Anders, we conclude that some of the arguments McManus raises in his pro se supplemental brief are barred by operation of the mandate rule. See United States v. Pileggi, 703 F.3d 675, 680 (4th Cir.2013) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Susi, 674 F.3d 278, 283-86
holding that a party may not raise an issue for the first time on appeal recognizing that procedural sentencing error is harmless if the resulting sentence is not longer thanthat to which the defendant would otherwise be subject alterations and internal quotation marks omitted recognizing that party is not permitted to use the accident of a remand to raise an issue that it could just as well have raised in the first appeal internal quotation marks and alterations omitted holding that the agency did not abuse its discretion in declining to grant a continuance where the petitioner was only at the first step in a long and discretionary process and relief was speculative at best alterations and internal quotation marks omitted holding that the act of slamming  is objectively sufficiently serious to state a claim for relief under the eighth amendment alterations and some internal quotation marks omitted