Waldron

MEMORANDUM **

Walter Wayne Waldron, Jr. appeals from the district court’s order that he pay attorney’s fees as reimbursement for his defense counsel’s time during his criminal trial and appeals. We affirm. Because the parties are familiar with the factual and procedural history of this case, we need not recount it here.

I

The district court did not exceed the scope of this Court’s mandate in the *533 previous appeal by awarding attorney’s fees. See Waldron v. United States, 172 Fed.Appx. 765, 767 (9th Cir.2006) (unpublished). Although we did not direct the district court to consider imposing attorney’s fees, neither did we prohibit the district court from doing so. Indeed, the question of fees is not addressed in the disposition at all. For this reason, Waldron’s argument fails. See U.S. v. Kellington, 217 F.3d 1084, 1092-93 (9th Cir.2000) (“According to the rule of mandate, although lower courts are obliged to execute the terms of a mandate, they are free as to ‘anything not foreclosed by the mandate ....’” (quoting Herrington v. County of Sonoma, 12 F.3d 901, 904 (9th Cir.1993))).

The district court’s fee award does not violate the law of the case. “The law of the case…