
    Nestor C. DOMINGO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Megan J. BRENNAN, Postmaster General Pacific Area United States Postal Service, Agency, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 16-16784
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 8, 2017 
    
    Filed May 10, 2017
    Nestor C. Domingo, Pro Se
    
      Steven Josh Saltiel, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ-USAO, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellee
    Before: REINHARDT, LEAVY, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Nestor C. Domingo appeals pro se from the district court’s order taxing costs in his federal employment action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Bravo v. City of Santa Maria, 810 F.3d 659, 665 (9th Cir. 2016). We affirm.

To the extent Domingo challenges the district court’s authority to award costs in this case, this court previously resolved this issue in Domingo v. Brennan, 639 Fed.Appx. 418, 420 (9th Cir. 2016), and we are bound by this determination. See S. Or. Barter Fair v. Jackson County, 372 F.3d 1128, 1136 (9th Cir. 2004) (“The law of the case doctrine ... precludes a court from reexamining an issue previously decided by ... a higher court in the same case.”). Contrary to Domingo’s contention, defendant’s amended bill of costs, filed after this court’s mandate issued, was not untimely, and our mandate did not preclude the district court from recalculating the amount of the costs award. See Stevens v. F/V Bonnie Doon, 731 F.2d 1433, 1435 (9th Cir. 1984) (“The mandate is controlling as to all matters within its compass, but leaves to the district court any issue not expressly or impliedly disposed of on appeal.”).

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     