Did the Seventh Circuit err in holding that district courts lack jurisdiction to consider motions under Section 1927 after a court of appeals has issued its mandate directing dismissal of the underlying case?

QUESTION PRESENTED It is “well established that a federal court may consider collateral issues,” including “motions for costs and attorney’s fees,” even after the underlying action “is no longer pending.” Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 395 (1990). In conflict with this “well established” rule and with all other courts of appeals to have addressed the issue, the Seventh Circuit holds that district courts lack jurisdiction to consider a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 for excess costs and fees when that motion is filed after a court of appeals has issued its mandate directing dismissal of the underlying case. The question presented is: Did the Seventh Circuit err in holding under those circumstances that district courts lack jurisdiction to consider motions under Section 1927?