issues. Issues not argued on appeal are forfeited. Indep. Towers, 350 F.3d at 929-30. Although he had filed an appeal from the fee award, Sternberg did not present an argument — or even a bare request — to set aside the district court’s $24,491 award, so he forfeited his appeal of that issue. Sternberg’s present appeal challenges the district court’s conclusion that we did not vacate the $24,491 award in our earlier opinion. As our opinion did not mention that fee award, the district court was correct. We will “not consider a new contention that could have been but was not raised on the prior appeal.” Munoz v. Imperial Cnty., 667 F.2d 811, 817 (9th Cir.1982); see Jimenez v. Franklin, 680 F.3d 1096, 1099-1100 (9th Cir.2012); In re Cellular 101, Inc., 539 F.3d 1150, 1155 (9th Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>). Since Sternberg could have— but did not —
holding that it would be a manipulation of the court system for party that had not raised all relevant issues in its first appeal to be allowed a second bite at the apple holding that issues not raised before the district court cannot be asserted for the first time on appeal holding that issues not raised before the trial court cannot be raised on appeal holding that issues not raised in the trial court may not be raised later on appeal holding that issues raised for the first time on appeal will not be considered