have authority to reopen that closed proceeding unless we first recall the mandate that affirmed the 1995 Order. Moreover, the Commission continues, we may not issue such a recall except in "exceptional circumstances,” upon a "showing of ‘good cause’ and the need to ‘prevent injustice.' " Greater Boston, 463 F.2d at 277-78. To resolve this case, however, there is no need to decide whether ACC's appeal must be styled as a request to recall our mandate, rather than as one to review a refusal to reopen. Compare Greater Boston, 463 F.2d at 291 (denying an FCC request to recall the court's mandate to permit the agency to hear argument regarding whether to reopen a comparative licensing proceeding), with Standard Oil Co. v. United States, 429 U.S. 17, 18, 97 S.Ct. 31, 50 L.Ed.2d 21 (1976) (<HOLDING>). As just discussed, our standard of review for
holding that district courts do not have appellate jurisdiction over state courts holding that a claim is not properly before the appellate court because it is axiomatic that arguments not raised below are waived on appeal holding that although district courts have discretion to deny leave to amend they may only do so for a substantial reason holding that although the district court was not required to discuss each of the factors on the record a decision to dismiss stands a better chance on appeal if the appellate court has the benefit of the district courts reasoning holding that although courts of appeals have required appellate leave before the district court could reopen a case which had been reviewed on appeal the arguments in favor of requiring appellate leave are unpersuasive