Gallagher

MEMORANDUM **

Everett Ray Mullens appeals the district court’s judgment against him, which was the ultimate result of his failure to pay sanctions imposed by that court. We affirm.

(1) We have jurisdiction over this appeal, even though our prior remand 1 was on a limited issue, and the district court did not enter a new judgment after it made findings and answered the question raised by that remand. See Sutton v. Earles, 26 F.3d 903 , 906 n. 1 (9th Cir.1994); see also Nat’l Distrib. Agency v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 117 F.3d 432, 433 (9th Cir.1997); Montes v. United States, 37 F.3d 1347, 1350 (9th Cir.1994).

(2) The district court properly placed the burden on Mullens to persuade it that he was not able to pay the monetary sanctions that had been awarded against him. See Gaskell v. Weir, 10 F.3d 626, 629 (9th Cir.1993) (sanctioned party “knows best” his situation and has the burden “to produce probative evidence of his inability to pay the sanctions”); see also View Eng’g, Inc. v. Robotic Vision Sys., Inc., 208 F.3d 981, 988 (Fed.Cir.2000); White v. Gen. Motors Corp., Inc., 908 F.2d 675, 685 (10th Cir.1990); cf. NLRB v. Trans Ocean Export Packing, Inc. 473 F.2d 612, 616 (9th…