See Seese v. Volkswagenwerk, A.G., 679 F.2d 336, 337 (3d Cir. 1982) (“The district court is without jurisdiction to alter the mandate of this court on the basis of matters included or includable in defendants' prior appeal.”); United States v. Trabelsi, No. 06-cr-89 (RDM), 2020 WL 1236652, at *8 (D.D.C. Mar. 13, 2020) (noting that the mandate rule “requires a lower court to honor the decisions of a superior court in the same judicial system”); see also United States v. Gabriel, No. 02-cr-216 (JDB), 2005 WL 1060631, at *7 n.9 (D.D.C. May 4, 2005) (“[T]he question in this case is whether this Court has any authority under . . . the mandate rule to consider the issue of the 1986 convictions at all. It would expand the waiver of waiver rule beyond all recognition to conclude that a district court lacks the authority to consider its own authority to hear cases on remand.”)

. The “plain error rule was erected to serve interests of judicial efficiency as well as fairness and reflects a ‘careful balancing of our need to encourage all trial participants to seek a fair and accurate trial the first time around against our insistence that obvious injustice be promptly redressed.'” United States v. Gabriel, No. 2-216 (JDB), 2005 WL 1060631, at *7 (D.D.C. May 4, 2005) (quoting United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1,15 (1985)). Under Rule 52(b), “[t]o be plain, any error ‘must be clear or obvious, rather than subject to reasonable dispute.'”