Adam WIERCINSKI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MANGIA 57, INC., Defendant-Appellee, Sasha Muniak, also known as Sasha A. Muniak, also known as Sasha T. Muniak, Artur Zbozien, Malgorzata Cymanow, also known as Margaret Cymanow, Grzegorz Sarosiek, Robert Bazgier, Dariusz Maslanka, Defendants, 698 F. App'x 8

SUMMARY ORDER Plaintiff-Appellant Adam Wiercinski (“Wiercinski”), proceeding pro se, has already appeared before our court twice before. After Wiercinski’s second appeal was dismissed sua sponte as frivolous, Wiercinski v. Mangia 57, Inc., No. 15-3152 (2d Cir. Dec. 10, 2015), Wiercinski filed two motions in the district court: (1) a motion for a new trial or a reversal of the district court’s decision; and (2) a motion ordering defendants to pay attorney’s fees and $1 in nominal damages. The district court denied both motions in an order entered on September 13, 2016, and Wiercinski now appeals from that order.

We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal. The district court correctly denied Wier-cinski’s motions based on the law of the case doctrine, which “forecloses reconsideration of issues that were decided—or that could have been decided—during pri- or proceedings” in the same case. United States v. Williams, 475 F.3d 468, 471 (2d Cir. 2007).

One branch of that doctrine, the mandate rule, “prevents re-litigation in the district court not only of matters expressly decided by the appellate court, but also precludes re-litigation of issues impliedly resolved by the appellate court’s mandate.” Brown v. City of Syracuse, 673 F.3d 141, 147 (2d Cir. 2012) (quoting Yick Man Mui v. United States, 614 F.3d 50, 53 (2d Cir. 2010)). Wiercinski’s arguments on appeal are squarely foreclosed by our rulings in his two prior appeals. See Wiercinski v. Mangia 57, Inc., 787 F.3d 106 (2d Cir. 2015); Wiercinski v. Mangia 57, Inc., No. 15-3152 (2d Cir. Dec. 10, 2015).

Further, although Wiercinski argues that the district court demonstrated bias before, during, and after trial, this issue could have been raised in his first appeal and is therefore also barred by the law of the case. See United States v. Quintieri, 306 F.3d 1217, 1229 (2d Cir. 2002) (“[WJhere an issue was ripe for review at the time of an initial appeal but was nonetheless foregone, it is considered waived and the law of the case doctrine bars ... an appellate court in a subsequent appeal from reopening such issues....” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

We have considered Wiercinski’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court’s order.