The general rule is that a district judge cannot sanction or threaten to penalize a lawyer who is planning to file an appeal that the district judge considers frivolous. If a frivolous or bad faith appeal is taken, that is a matter for the court of appeals. Joseph, Sanctions: The Federal Law of Litigation Abuse §§ 17(A)(15), 23(A)(4) (3d ed. Supp. 2007). The Ninth Circuit ruled in Azizian v. Federated Dept. Stores, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 20070 (9th Cir. Aug. 23, 2007) that this bars the District Court from increasing the appellate bond to cover potential appellate sanctions: "Allowing districts court to impose high Rule 7 bonds on where the appeals might be found frivolous risks 'impermissibly encumber[ing]' appellants' right to appeal and 'effectively preempt[ing] this court's prerogative' to make its own frivolousness determination." In contrast, on an issue that splits the Circuits, the Ninth Circuit also ruled that, to the extent attorneys' fees are awardable as "costs" under the governing statute, appellate attorneys' fees may be taken into account by the District Judge in setting the amount of the bond. "We agree with the Second, Sixth, and Eleventh Circuits and hold that the term 'costs on appeal' in Rule 7 includes all expenses defined as 'costs' by an applicable fee-shifting statute, including attorney's fees."