ÿWPC&` þ€+¥“ina@Næêyïò7²‹ˆŸJY&O„ŸUH‚ ³=õ2ç¯ýVVv#Ñ+µ^òu$iGi'•ytsÁ¢(oWõõ"Y½4ÿµ…HýWã\R Yl+ý%>ò+ÙN–ŸÝÓüNWPçrvçŒ%ƒ\ô’÷±µo9Fkk+ð³&`.I W¶Ï,rŠüL‡Ì«§¿‰ÕÄð„¶Þ”€ÝÁpQŠØH§"׺ø„‘öõ‹j¢=ùu¾LÉŽØ<•šChfò³2VÖÚ 3`9 KàˆêFÑÿ„¡#G9 “4u¢:\¤—k콫gªKGK¼ê'ÃÝ–¬çà7Yñ9 †Œ3*vV‰®!¼„«}!ß~ëžwhï@žºâ9S^GwŒa¢¢ãÊlƒ.ˆØ¯Ž2Ó©’Èö6O뺢¥/k¸¨ŒŒ<¢C¥±AZ ‚¬ÆçUkÛ©À69¢¼ £àˆk`}·Žx¡†ÃˆCB¿ãBI/öb戫ñ©ïrÁÙ i‹™Yq“ {k¦wqr§T³ _Äø­Ò¥>ñÈ+¸ ®–Ñï:›†|;U*ël7r6ÑIªZÇxµF yŒ¸ÎùÌŠ eIëæ"æ}¯‡Éz#Á¬UNm %» 0(Á 0 Dé 0 Æ- U >ó nT1 N… ^ ‡ w“ 4— « º m¼ NÓ EÕ f× aÙ 02í U6 1uU 0 cÊU>-Mk 01oU*  0=Ê 0È 0>Ï 0Ê  0´× 0´‹ 0a? 0´  0´T 09 0ÜA B 0ü: 0:6 0…p 0_õ 0 T 0k^ 0ÇÉ B* D3º Cí D+ 0Ç2 0çù 06à 0 0:! 0hX! 0FÀ!UB"bH"H"MP" 0wT"MË" 0ŠÏ" 0 Y# 0´ù# 0Ç­$ 0Ût% 0ïO& 1‰>'>'Ç'ÓË9„ž>'"C(IHIHkqH ÜIÜIÜI·èNèNèN¡ŸT 72@[@[@[@[@[¯r[r[r[r[r[r[r[r[r[r[r[r[r[r[r[r[r[r[ 1‡!^ 72¨^ 0DÚ^Ú^Ú^Ú^Ú^Ú^Ú^Ú^Ú^Ú^`˜HP LaserJet 4,ü,,,,,ü0(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(d:2]Ù$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€ë¼X‚ÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó<àŠ 09Z+&Courier Regular«<þ6X9`("Courier NewTTXXxþ6X@ÉDQX@<þ6X9`(CourierTTXXwþ6X@ÉüQX@Ë‹|,s -H|,?,}£backup3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀøÀTABLE A,ÿÿ*CITEòòóó<þ6X9`(Courier New3#37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)(;3£$´´Ô2#ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  àô\  `&Times New Roman0ÿÿ.Normal%ä2¼A`Arial<ÿÿ:Definition T<GDÿÿ:Definition LÓ , ÓÓ;1ܰÜ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#;ÓÓ  ÓÓ8.°°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#8Ó8ÿÿ6Definitionòòóó('zÿÿ&H1ò òÔ  ÔÔ‡°°°Ôó óÔ  ÔÔ‡XXXÔ(oÿÿ&H2ò òÔ‡„„„Ôó óÔ‡XXXÔ(oÿÿ&H3ò òÔ‡¼¼¼Ôó óÔ‡XXXÔ(ÿÿ&H4ò òÔ‡XXXÔó óÔ‡XXXÔ(oÿÿ&H5ò òÔ‡ôôôÔó óÔ‡XXXÔ(oÿÿ&H6ò òÔ‡Ôó óÔ‡XXXÔ2ÿÿ0Addressòòóó8SPÿÿ6BlockquoteÓ , ÓÓ , ÓÓ;1ܰÜ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#;ÓÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÓ8.°°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#8Ó d,dlÿÿ*CODEÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡<þ6X9`(Courier NewKÔÔ‡XXXÔÔS‡ô\  `&Times New RomanSÔ4ÿÿ2Emphasisòòóó6&)ÿÿ4HyperlinkÔ  ÔÔ  ÔòòÔ ÿ ÔóóÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ  Ô<ÿÿ:FollowedHypeòòÔ €€ ÔóóÔ  Ô4goÿÿ2Keyboardò òÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡<þ6X9`(Courier NewKÔó óÔ‡XXXÔÔS‡ô\  `&Times New RomanSÔ<“›ÿÿ:PreformattedÓ/%° °Ïî ,KkŠ©È (#/ÓÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡<þ6X9`(Courier NewKÔÔ‡XXXÔÔS‡ô\  `&Times New RomanSÔÓ/%° °Ïî ,KkŠ©È (#/Ó<ÃÇÿÿ:z©Bottom of ÓI€014$À˜ ** €€d€dIÓÓ  ÓÔB  ÔÔ € ÔÔ‡ÔÔ?‡%ä2¼A`Arial?ÔÓ9€21*À  €€d€d9ÓÓ  ÓÔ‡XXXÔÔS‡ô\  `&Times New RomanSÔÔ € Ô&ÿÿ0 d d////'þÿÈÈÈÈdxd÷ÿdÿÿÿd'ÈÈÈÈdxd<ÃÇÿÿ:z©Top of ForÓI€014$À˜** €€d€dIÓÓ  ÓÔB  ÔÔ € ÔÔ‡ÔÔ?‡%ä2¼A`Arial?ÔÓ9€21*À  €€d€d9ÓÓ  ÓÔ‡XXXÔÔS‡ô\  `&Times New RomanSÔÔ € Ô0Klÿÿ.SampleÔK‡<þ6X9`(Courier NewKÔÔS‡ô\  `&Times New RomanSÔ0ÿÿ.Strongò òó ó8dlÿÿ6TypewriterÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡<þ6X9`(Courier NewKÔÔ‡XXXÔÔS‡ô\  `&Times New RomanSÔ4ÿÿ2Variableòòóó:ÿÿ8HTML MarkupÔB  ÔÔ ÿ ÔÔ  Ô2 ÿÿ0CommentÔB  Ô<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi- ù-(Oé;$µµà0  àÔ2#ÔÚ  ÚaÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0` (#(#à(b·¤$¶¶à0  àà0` (#(#àÔ2#ÔÚ  ÚÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0¸ ` (#` (#à(xir$··à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àÔ2#Ô(Ú  Ú0Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0¸ (#¸ (#à(ŒÜ$¸¸à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àÔ2#Ô(Ú  ÚaÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0h(#(#à(ŸF$¹¹à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àÔ2#Ô(Ú  ÚÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0Àh(#h(#à(³Àô$ººà0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àÔ2#ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0À(#À(#à(ǵ{$»»à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àà0À(#À(#àÔ2#ÔÚ  ÚaÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0p(#(#à>@ABCDEx ¬Gaeimquy}Bullet ListBullets List úÝ ƒ]Ù$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€ë¼X‚ÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡X}nXXXÔAppellee€argues€that€White€cannot€take€an€appeal€from€any€ofÐ ° Ðthe€district€court's€underlying€orders€because€no€certificate€ofÐ xÈ Ðappealability€(COA)€has€issued€in€this€case,€as€required€by€theÐ @ ÐAntiterrorism€and€Effective€Death€Penalty€Act€(AEDPA),€28€U.S.C.€ððÐ X Ð2253(c)€(1996),€and€Rule€22(b)€of€the€Federal€Rules€of€AppellateÐ Ð  ÐProcedure.€€òòSeeóó€òòSlackóó€v.€òòMcDanielóó,€529€U.S.€473,€482€(2000)€(whereÐ ˜è Ðpetitioner€sought€appellate€review€after€the€AEDPA's€effectiveÐ ` ° Ðdate,€ðð€2253(c)€governs€his€right€to€appeal).€€Although€WhiteÐ ( x Ðapplied€to€the€district€court€for€a€COA€on€January€2,€2001,€theÐ ð @ Ðdistrict€court€has€not€ruled€on€that€application.€€We€neverthelessÐ ¸   Ðdisagree€that€the€lack€of€a€COA€is€fatal€to€White's€appeal.€UnderÐ € Ð  Ðthe€AEDPA€amendments,€a€habeas€petitioner€who€fails€to€obtain€a€COAÐ H ˜  Ðfrom€the€district€court€may€request€a€circuit€judge€to€issue€theÐ `  F ÐCOA.€€Fed.€R.€App.€P.€22(b)(1).€€Furthermore,€"[i]f€no€expressÐ ° Ðrequest€for€a€certificate€is€filed,€the€notice€of€appealÐ xÈ Ðconstitutes€a€request€addressed€to€the€judges€of€the€court€ofÐ @ Ðappeals."€Fed.€R.€App.€P.€22(b)(2).€€Accordingly,€in€òòBuióó€v.Ð X ÐòòDipaoloóó,€170€F.3d€232€(1òòstóó€Cir.€1999),€we€stated€that€"for€cases€inÐ Ð  Ðwhich€the€district€court€does€not€grant€a€COA€at€all€.€.€.€theÐ ˜è Ðcourt€of€appeals€must€deem€a€notice€of€appeal€to€represent€aÐ ` ° Ðrequest€for€a€COA€on€all€issues€raised."Ô#†Xë¼XXX}n®#ÔÔ‡X}nXXXë¼Ô€170€F.3d€at€237.€€Although€Ð ( x Ðthe€quoted€language€in€òòBuióó€contemplated€a€situation€where€theÐ ð @ Ðdistrict€court€had€denied€the€petitioner's€request€for€a€COA€on€allÐ ¸   Ðissues,€unlike€the€fact€scenario€we€have€here,€where€the€districtÐ € Ð  Ðcourt€has€not€ruled€on€the€request€at€all,€we€find€that€the€sameÐ H ˜  Ðprinciple€should€apply.€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòSlackóó,€529€U.S.€at€481„83Ô#†Xë¼XXX}nÔ#ÔÔ‡X}nXXXë¼ÔÐ `  Ð(treating€a€notice€of€appeal€as€a€request€for€a€COA€where€noÐ Ø(  Ðrequest€for€a€COA€was€filed€at€the€district€court€level).€€WeÐ  ð  Ðtherefore€treat€White's€notice€of€appeal€as€a€request€for€a€COA.€€Ð h¸  Ðà  àAs€to€the€determination€of€when€a€COA€should€issue,€theÐ 0€  ÐSupreme€Court€directs€us€as€follows:Ð øH  Ðà0  àà8` (#(#àWhere€a€district€court€has€rejected€theÐ À Ðconstitutional€claims€on€the€merits,€the€showingÐ ˆØ Ðrequired€to€satisfy€ðð€2253(c)€is€straightforward:Ð P  ÐThe€petitioner€must€demonstrate€that€reasonableÐ h Ðjurists€would€find€the€district€court's€assessmentÐ à0 Ðof€the€constitutional€claims€debatable€or€wrong.€.Ð ¨ø Ð.€.€When€the€district€court€denies€a€habeasÐ pÀ Ðpetition€on€procedural€grounds€without€reaching€theÐ 8ˆ Ðprisoner's€underlying€constitutional€claim,€a€COAÐ P Ðshould€issue€when€the€prisoner€shows,€at€least,Ð È Ðthat€jurists€of€reason€would€find€it€debatableÐ à Ðwhether€the€petition€states€a€valid€claim€of€theÐ X¨ Ðdenial€of€a€constitutional€right€and€that€juristsÐ  p Ðof€reason€would€find€it€debatable€whether€theÐ è8 Ðdistrict€court€was€correct€in€its€proceduralÐ °  Ðruling.ÐxÈ!` Ð ` Ð  ÐòòSlackóó,€529€U.S.€at€484.€€Although€we€ultimately€determine€that€theÐ @" Ðdistrict€court€was€correct€in€its€procedural€ruling,€and€althoughÐ  X# Ðwe€therefore€do€not€reach€the€merits€of€White's€underlyingÐ Ð $ Ðconstitutional€claim,€as€our€careful€consideration€of€White'sÐ ˜!è% Ðclaims€indicates,€we€believe€that€jurists€of€reason€would€findÐ `"°& Ðthese€issues€debatable€and€that€a€COA€should€therefore€issue.Ô#†Xë¼XXX}nï #Ô ÉÝ ƒ]Ù$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€ë¼X‚ÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔòòÔ‡X}nXXXÔSeeóó€òòSlackóó,€529€U.S.€at€487„88€(proscribing€dismissal,€as€aÐ ° Ðsecond€or€successive€petition€under€Ô_ÔAEDPAÔ_Ô,€28€U.S.C.ðð€2244(b),€ofÐ xÈ Ða€habeas€petition€filed€after€a€previous€petition€has€beenÐ @ Ðdismissed€on€exhaustion€grounds);€€òòStewartóó€v.€òòMartinez„Ô_ÔVillarealÔ_Ôóó,Ð X Ð523€U.S.€637€(1998)€(finding€that€a€timely„brought€habeas€claim€isÐ Ð  Ðnot€a€second€or€successive€petition€when€it€was€previouslyÐ ˜è Ðdismissed€only€for€lack€of€ripeness);€òòÔ_ÔLoncharÔ_Ôóó€v.€òòThomasóó,€517€U.S.Ð ` ° Ð314€(1996)€(holding€that€court€of€appeals€cannot€dismiss€firstÐ ( x Ðhabeas€petition€for€special€ad€hoc€equitable€reasons,€including€aÐ ð @ Ðmere€delay,€beyond€the€framework€embodied€in€statutes,€rules,€andÐ ¸   Ðprecedent).€€Ô#†Xë¼XXX}n±#Ô zÝ ƒ]Ù$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€ë¼X‚ÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡X}nXXXÔAlthough€not€applicable€to€this€appeal,€we€note€that€proposedÐ ° Ðamendments€to€Rule€58€of€the€Federal€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure€andÐ xÈ Ðto€Rule€4(a)€of€the€Federal€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure,€Ð @ Ðsubmitted€to€the€Supreme€Court€in€November€of€2001,€adopt€a€ruleÐ X Ðsimilar€to€our€òòFioreóó€holding.€€The€proposed€Rules€58€and€4(a)Ð Ð  Ðestablish€that,€where€a€separate€document€is€required€butÐ ˜è Ðinadvertently€not€entered,€the€time€for€appeal€will€begin€to€runÐ ` ° Ð150€days€after€the€entry€of€the€judgment€or€order€in€the€civilÐ ( x Ðdocket.€€Federal€Rulemaking,€Pending€Rules€Amendments€AwaitingÐ ð @ ÐFinal€Action,€Amendments€Submitted€to€the€Supreme€Court€(NovemberÐ ¸   Ð2001),€òòavailable€atóó€http://www.uscourts.gov/rules/supct1101.html.Ô#†Xë¼XXX}n®#Ô Ý ƒ]Ù$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€ë¼X‚ÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡X}nXXXÔIn€òòFioreóó€itself,€we€found€that€the€appellant€had€not€waivedÐ ° Ðthe€Rule€58€requirement€where€he€followed€up€a€June€27,€1990Ð xÈ Ðdecision,€which€was€not€entered€on€a€separate€document,€with€a€JulyÐ @ Ð17,€1990€motion€seeking€reconsideration,€but€waited€until€OctoberÐ X Ð22,€1990€to€move€for€entry€of€final€judgment€on€the€June€27Ð Ð  Ðdecision.€€690€F.2d€at€236„37.€€òòButóó€òòseeóó€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòPodolskyóó,Ð ˜è Ð158€F.3d€12,€15„16€(1òòstóó€Cir.€1998)€(holding€that€òòFioreóó€waiver€ruleÐ ` ° Ðapplied€to€a€five„month€delay€in€filing€a€notice€of€appeal€on€aÐ ( x Ðdecision,€not€entered€on€a€separate€document,€denying€a€motion€forÐ ð @ Ðreturn€of€property,€even€though€appellant€had€sent€a€letter€to€theÐ ¸   Ðcourt€within€three€months€of€the€decision,€asking€that€a€belatedlyÐ € Ð  Ðfiled€response€to€the€motion€be€considered€a€motion€forÐ H ˜  Ðreconsideration).Ô#†Xë¼XXX}n®#Ô aÝ ƒ]Ù$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€ë¼X‚ÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔòòÔ‡X}nXXXÔSeeóó€Fed.€R.€Civ.€P.€58€("Every€judgment€shall€be€set€forth€onÐ ° Ða€separate€document.").€€Ô#†Xë¼XXX}n±#Ô Ý ƒ]Ù$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€ë¼X‚ÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡X}nXXXÔRecognizing€that€the€1987€Motion€to€Vacate€was€apparently€notÐ ° Ðreceived€by€the€district€court€and€was€never€docketed,€White€arguedÐ xÈ Ðthat€under€the€"mailing€is€filing"€rule,€òòHoustonóó€v.€òòLackóó,€487€U.S.Ð @ Ð266,€270€(1988),€applicable€to€the€efforts€of€pro€se€prisoners,€hisÐ X Ðaction€should€be€taken€as€at€least€sufficient€to€rebut€anyÐ Ð  Ðinference€of€waiver€under€òòÔ_ÔFioreÔ_Ôóó.€€Furthermore,€although€heÐ ˜è Ðallegedly€mailed€the€1987€Motion€to€Vacate€more€than€three€monthsÐ ` ° Ðafter€the€1987€Dismissal,€he€argued€that€the€fact€that€it€was€filedÐ ( x Ðwithin€three€months€of€his€apprehension€and€return€to€MassachusettsÐ ð @ Ðwas€sufficient€to€overcome€an€inference€of€waiver.€€In€light€of€ourÐ ¸   Ðholding€that€the€letter€was€not€newly€discovered€evidence,Ð € Ð  Ðdiscussed€òòinfraóó,€we€need€not€consider€these€arguments.Ô#†Xë¼XXX}n®#Ô ­Ý ƒ]Ù$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€ë¼X‚ÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡X}nXXXÔAlthough€White's€1997€motion€sought€relief€from€the€1987Ð ° ÐDismissal€under€both€Rule€59€and€Rule€60,€it€was€untimely€underÐ xÈ Ðeither€rule.€€Fed.€R.€Civ.€P.€59(b)€("Any€motion€for€a€new€trialÐ @ Ðshall€be€filed€no€later€than€10€days€after€entry€of€the€judgment");Ð X ÐFed.€R.€Civ.€P.€59(e)€("Any€motion€to€alter€or€amend€a€judgmentÐ Ð  Ðshall€be€filed€no€later€than€10€days€after€the€entry€of€theÐ ˜è Ðjudgment.");€Fed.€R.€Civ.€P.€60(b)€("The€motion€shall€be€madeÐ ` ° Ðwithin€a€reasonable€time,€and€.€.€.€not€more€than€one€year€afterÐ ( x Ðthe€judgment,€order,€or€proceeding€was€entered€or€taken.").€Ð ð @ ÐFurthermore,€we€decline€to€consider€White's€argument€that,€€becauseÐ ¸   Ðfinal€judgment€had€not€entered,€€his€1997€motion€for€relief€fromÐ € Ð  Ðthe€1987€Dismissal€was€analogous€to€a€motion€to€set€aside€a€defaultÐ H ˜  Ðunder€rule€55(c),€because€€we€have€already€determined€that€the€1987Ð `  ÐDismissal€was€a€final€judgment,€and€because€White€made€thisÐ Ø(  Ðargument€for€the€first€time€on€appeal.Ô#†Xë¼XXX}n®#Ô —Ý ƒ]Ù$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€ë¼X‚ÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡X}nXXXÔOn€appeal,€White€additionally€takes€issue€with€the€districtÐ ° Ðcourt's€position€that€"[a]ssuming,€without€finding,€that€the€courtÐ xÈ Ðhas€the€discretion€to€reconsider€its€1987€decision,€it€is€notÐ @ Ðappropriate€to€do€so."€€1999€Order€at€4.€€White€argued€that€theÐ X Ðdistrict€court€exercised€its€discretion€without€taking€into€accountÐ Ð  Ðfactors€such€as€the€merits€of€White's€claim€and€the€policy€of€theÐ ˜è ÐCommonwealth€of€Massachusetts€for€reinstatement€of€appealsÐ ` ° Ðfollowing€the€return€of€a€fugitive.€€He€further€argued€that€theÐ ( x Ðdistrict€court€inappropriately€considered€the€fact€that€AEDPA,Ð ð @ Ðwhich€post„dates€White's€petition€by€a€decade,€codified€Congress'sÐ ¸   Ðview€that€the€public€interest€is€best€served€when€claims€ofÐ € Ð  Ðunconstitutional€conduct€are€reviewed€promptly.€€òòSeeóó€1999€Order€atÐ H ˜  Ð4„5.€Having€found€that€the€district€court€properly€based€the€1999Ð `  ÐOrder€on€the€untimeliness€of€White's€motion€for€relief€from€theÐ Ø(  Ð1987€Dismissal,€we€also€point€out€that€it€correctly€put€asideÐ  ð  Ðconsiderations€such€as€the€merits€of€White's€habeas€claim€or€policyÐ h¸  Ðissues.€€We€need€not€address€these€additional€arguments€made€byÐ 0€  ÐWhite.€€€€Ô#†Xë¼XXX}n®#Ôi) ¥Ý ƒ]Ù$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€ë¼X‚ÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔòòÔ‡X}nXXXÔSeeóó€òòWang€Labs.óó,€926€F.2d€at€96€("Because€'[Ô_Ôt]heÔ_Ô€sole€purposeÐ ° Ðof€the€separate„document€requirement€.€.€.€was€to€clarify€when€theÐ xÈ Ðtime€for€appeal€under€28€U.S.C.€ðð€2107€begins€to€run,'€the€lack€ofÐ @ Ða€separate€document€does€not€affect€the€finality€of€the€judgment.")Ð X Ð(citing€òòBankers€Trustóó,€435€U.S.€at€385).€Ô#†Xë¼XXX}n±#Ô>@ABCDEh¹ˆCEIMQUY]aAutoList122222222i)1)a)mo2(F$ïïà0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àà0À(#À(#àà0p(#(#àÔ2#ÔÙ ÙÚ  ÚÚ  ÚÙ Ù)Ô3  Ôà0Èp(#p(#àÙ Ù Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑTRY,3Ø'Xà3Ø' Letter 3Ø' Letterÿ3Ø'TÑÑ ? ÑÙ*ƒ !ÙÔ€°*d°XXÔò òÓ  ÓÓ  ÓUnited€States€Court€of€AppealsÔ€„™1„°°*dÔÐ ° ÐFor€the€First€Circuitó óÔ€„ÇW„„„™1ÔÔ€X}nX„„ÇWÔÐ „Ô ÐÓØÓÌÌßA€') °°` dE<s ` AßÐ t Ä ÐÌÌNos.€01„1116Ð  c Ѐ€€€€01„1834Ð Û + ÐÌà@àà$ìàROY€W.€WHITE,ˆÐ k »  ÐÌà@ÄÄìàPetitioner,€Appellant,ˆÐ ûK  ÐÌà@tt)ìàv.ˆÐ ‹Û  ÐÌà@,,"ìàMICHAEL€V.€FAIR,ˆÐ k  ÐÌà@ ìàRespondent,€Appellee.ˆÐ «û ÐÌßA€') °°` dE<:` AßÐ ;‹ ÐÌà@` ` ìàAPPEALS€FROM€THE€UNITED€STATES€DISTRICT€COURTˆÐ b ÐÌà@0 0 ìàFOR€THE€DISTRICT€OF€MASSACHUSETTSˆÐ ¢ò ÐÌà@Œ Œ ìà[Hon.€Mark€L.€Wolf,€U.S.€District€Judge]ˆÐ 2‚ ÐÌßA€') °°` dE<Á` AßÐ Â ÐÌà@„„'ìàBeforeˆÐ ™é ÐÌÓ  Óà@@((ìà€Ô_ÔTorruellaÔ_Ô,€òòCircuit€Judgeóó,Ð )y  ÐÔ_ÔStahlÔ_Ô,€òòSenior€Circuit€Judgeóó,Ð ñA! Ðand€Ô_ÔO'TooleÔ_Ô,€Jr.*€òòDistrict€Judgeóó.Ð ¹ " ÐÌÌßA€') °°` dE<!` AßÐ !a% ÐÌÓ  ÓÓ  Óà  àòòJohn€M.€Thompsonóó,€with€whom€òòThompson€&€Thompson,€P.C.óó,€were€onÐ è!8' Ðbrief,€for€appellant.Ð °"( Ðà  àòòJames€J.€Ô_ÔArguinÔ_Ôóó,€Assistant€Attorney€General,€with€whom€òòThomasÐ x#È) ÐF.€Reillyóó,€Attorney€General,€was€on€brief,€for€appellee.Ð @$* ÐÌÌÔ*‹ƒ'ddd Xdd Xdd X°(#°(#‹ÔÔ,( dd ÔÔ,( dd ÔÔ,( dd ÔÔ+  ÔÐ ˜&è!-˜&è! ‹‹ÐÓ¾ÓÐ SIü&L". À;â@37342„„‰À;â@‰‹‹SÐÌMarch€28,€2002Ð Ä'#0 ÐÐ RHCŒ(Ü#1" À;â@37342 À;â@ ‹‹RÐÐ(ü&L"2  (ÐÓ  ÓÙ* !ÙÌÌÓ  ÓÌ_____________________Ð Ü+,'5 Ð*Of€the€District€of€Massachusetts,€sitting€by€designation.Ð  ¤,ô'6? ÐÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÓÓÑ8€:}n:XXdÈdÈ8ÑÑ€;ÑÓ*°,X°` ¨ ƒX°œX*ÓÔ",USú ú, ú (ú:!ú&ú),Ôà ` àò òSTAHL,€òòSenior€Circuit€Judgeó óóó.€€On€April€29,€1985,Ð ° Ðpetitioner„appellant€Roy€W.€White€("White")€sought€a€writ€of€habeasÐ à Ðcorpus€in€federal€district€court€for€relief€from€his€conviction€inÐ  p ÐMassachusetts€state€court€for€second€degree€murder.€€He€now€appealsÐ °  Ðthe€March€26,€1987€dismissal€with€prejudice€of€his€habeas€petition,Ð @  Ðas€well€as€a€September€27,€1999€order€denying€a€motion€for€reliefÐ Ð   Ðfrom€the€1987€dismissal.€€In€addition,€he€appeals€two€orders€by€theÐ `°  Ðdistrict€court,€issued€on€September€28,€2000€and€May€30,€2001,€eachÐ ð@  Ðdenying€a€motion€for€reconsideration.€€We€hold€that€we€do€not€haveÐ €Ð  Ðjurisdiction€to€consider€the€1987€dismissal€of€White's€habeasÐ ` Ðpetition,€and€we€affirm€on€the€merits€the€1999€order€denying€reliefÐ  ð Ðfrom€the€1987€dismissal€as€well€as€the€orders€denying€White's€twoÐ 0€ Ðmotions€for€reconsideration.Ð À ÐÌÓ  ÓI.Ð à0 ÐÓÓòòA.€The€Dismissal€of€White's€Habeas€Corpus€PetitionóóÐ pÀ Ðà ` àFollowing€a€conviction€for€second€degree€murder€inÐ P  ÐMassachusetts€state€court€in€1971,€White€was€sentenced€to€lifeÐ à" Ðimprisonment.€€His€conviction€was€affirmed€on€direct€appeal.€Ð  !p$ ÐòòCommonwealthóó€v.€òòWhiteóó,€296€N.E.€2d€822€(Mass.€1973).€€After€aÐ °"& Ðfailed€attempt€to€obtain€a€new€trial€in€state€court,€òòseeóóÐ @$( ÐòòCommonwealthóó€v.€òòWhiteóó,€467€N.E.€2d€79€(Mass.€1984),€White€filed€aÐ Ð% !* Ðwrit€of€habeas€corpus€in€the€district€court€on€April€29,€1985,Ð `'°", Ðarguing€that€his€murder€conviction€was€obtained€in€violation€of€hisÐ ð(@$. Ðconstitutionally€guaranteed€right€to€due€process€of€law€because€theÐ €*Ð%0 Ðjury€had€been€given€instructions€in€violation€of€òòSandstromóó€v.Ð ,`'2 ÐòòMontanaóó,€442€U.S.€510€(1979).€€On€March€19,€1986,€while€his€habeasÐ ° Ðpetition€was€pending,€White€failed€to€return€to€prison€from€a€then„Ð @ Ðauthorized€furlough€program€and€became€a€fugitive.€€On€February€27,Ð Ð  Ð1987,€a€magistrate€judge€issued€a€report€and€recommendation€thatÐ ` ° ÐWhite's€petition€be€dismissed€with€prejudice.€€òòWhiteóó€v.€òòFairóó,€No.Ð ð @ Ð85„1670„WF,€R.€Doc.€9€(D.€Mass.€Feb.€27,€1987)€(Collings,€Mag.€J.).€Ð € Ð  ÐThe€magistrate€judge€based€his€determination€on€the€fact€that,€asÐ `  Ða€fugitive€from€justice,€the€petitioner€was€not€entitled€to€invokeÐ  ð  Ðthe€powers€of€the€court.òòóó€òòId.óó€at€1;€òòseeóó€òòMolinaroóó€v.€òòNew€Jerseyóó,€396Ð 0€  ÐU.S.€365€(1970).€€à  àÐ À Ðà ` àOn€March€26,€1987,€the€district€court€adopted€theÐ P  Ðmagistrate€judge's€recommendation€and€dismissed€the€petition.€€TheÐ à0 Ðdistrict€court€did€so€by€a€handwritten€note€in€the€margin€of€theÐ pÀ Ðmagistrate€judge's€report,€stating€"[f]or€the€compelling€reasonsÐ P Ðstated€in€this€report€Plaintiff's€Petition€is€hereby€DISMISSED."€Ð à ÐòòWhiteóó€v.€òòFairóó,€No.€85„1670„WF,€R.€Doc.€9€(D.€Mass.€March€26,€1987)Ð  p Ð(Note€by€Wolf,€J.)€(hereinafter€"1987€Dismissal").€€The€order€wasÐ °  Ðnot€set€out€on€a€separate€document€€as€required€by€Rule€58€of€theÐ @" ÐFederal€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure.׃N×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×.€Ð Ð $ ÐòòB.€White's€Post„Dismissal€Correspondence€with€the€CourtóóÐ `"°& Ðòòóóà ` àSubsequently,€White€was€apprehended€and€returned€toÐ ð#@( ÐMassachusetts€in€July€1987.€€The€parties€disagree€both€as€toÐ €%Ð * Ðwhether€White€understood€at€the€time€of€his€re„incarceration€thatÐ '`", Ðhis€habeas€petition€had€been€dismissed€with€prejudice€and€as€toÐ  (ð#. Ðwhether€he€took€any€action€to€try€to€revive€the€dismissed€petition.€Ð ° ÐWhite€claims€that€he€believed€that€his€habeas€claim€had€been€put€onÐ @ Ðhold€pending€exhaustion€of€state€remedies€and€that,€to€that€end,€heÐ Ð  Ðfiled€a€petition€for€rehearing,€as€well€as€later€apparently€aÐ ` ° Ðmotion€for€a€new€trial,€in€state€court.€€White€also€contends€„„€butÐ ð @ Ðoffered€evidence€to€this€effect€for€the€first€time€only€in€a€motionÐ € Ð  Ðfor€reconsideration€„„€that€he€prepared€and€mailed€a€motion€toÐ `  Ðvacate€the€order€of€dismissal€of€his€habeas€petition€in€AugustÐ  ð  Ð1987.€€Ð 0€  Ðà ` àIn€any€case,€the€parties€agree€that€White€correspondedÐ À Ðwith€the€district€court€in€June€and€August€of€1990.€€On€June€18,Ð P  Ð1990,€White€sent€a€letter€to€district€court€judge€Andrew€Caffrey€„„Ð à0 Ѐwho€was€not€the€judge€who€had€dismissed€his€habeas€petition€„„Ð pÀ Ðrequesting€him€to€instruct€the€clerk's€office€to€send€him€his€file,Ð P Ðso€that€he€could€"submit€appropriate€motions€to€this€court€forÐ à Ðreview€and€disposition."€€In€the€same€letter,€White€stated€that€heÐ  p Ðhad€"serious€reason€to€believe€that€fundamental€constitutionalÐ °  Ðrights€are€at€stake€in€this€case€and€that€it€should€have€not€beenÐ @" Ðdismissed€with€prejudice€in€the€manner€that€it€was."€€On€June€26,Ð Ð $ Ð1990,€White€filed€a€motion€with€the€district€court,€seeking€toÐ `"°& Ðwaive€copying€costs€on€certain€documents.€€On€August€6,€1990,€WhiteÐ ð#@( Ðwrote€again€to€Judge€Caffrey,€asking€for€a€ruling€on€his€motion€toÐ €%Ð * Ðwaive€copying€costs.€€He€stated€that€"[t]he€requested€documents€areÐ '`", Ðintegral€to€new€motions€to€this€court€that€would€seek€a€thoroughÐ  (ð#. Ðreconsideration€of€this€matter."€The€transferred€record€does€notÐ 0*€%0 Ðindicate€what€action,€if€any,€was€taken€on€White's€requests.€€InÐ À+'2 Ðany€event,€White€did€not€follow€up€his€1990€correspondence€with€theÐ ° Ðcourt€with€any€motions€or€appeals.€€Ð @ ÐòòC.€White's€Motion€for€Relief€from€the€1987€DismissalóóÐ Ð  Ðà ` àIt€was€not€until€April€23,€1997€that€White€filed€a€motionÐ ` ° Ðfor€relief€from€the€1987€dismissal€pursuant€to€Rules€59€and€60€ofÐ ð @ Ðthe€Federal€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure.€òòSeeóó€Rule€11,€Rules€GoverningÐ € Ð  ÐSection€2254€Cases€in€the€United€States€District€Courts€(applying€Ð `  ÐFederal€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure€to€habeas€corpus€actions).€WhileÐ  ð  Ðrecognizing€that€his€motion€was€filed€ten€years€after€the€lastÐ 0€  Ðactivity€on€his€habeas€action,€White€argued€that€the€district€courtÐ À Ðnevertheless€had€jurisdiction€to€review€the€1987€Dismissal€of€hisÐ P  Ðhabeas€petition€because€no€final€judgment€had€been€entered€and€theÐ à0 Ðtime€for€appeal€had€thereby€not€begun€to€run.€€White€based€thisÐ pÀ Ðargument€on€the€fact€that€the€district€court€order€dismissing€hisÐ P Ðcase€had€not€been€entered€on€a€separate€document.Ð à Ðà ` àOn€September€27,€1999,€the€district€court€denied€White'sÐ  p Ðmotion€for€relief€from€the€order€of€dismissal.€€òòWhiteóó€v.€òòFairóó,€No.Ð °  Ð85„1670„WF,€R.€Doc.€24€(D.€Mass.€Sept.€27,€1999)€(Wolf,€J.)Ð @" Ð(hereinafter€"1999€Order").€€The€court€assumed,€without€finding,Ð Ð $ Ðthat€no€separate€document€had€been€filed€dismissing€White's€habeasÐ `"°& Ðpetition.€€Relying€on€òòBankers€Trust€Co.óó€v.€òòMallisóó,€435€U.S.€381,Ð ð#@( Ð384€(1978),€and€òòWang€Laboratories,€Inc.óó€v.€òòApplied€ComputerÐ €%Ð * ÐSciences,€Inc.óó,€926€F.2d€92,€96€(1òòstóó€Cir.€1991),€the€courtÐ '`", Ðnevertheless€determined€that€it€lacked€jurisdiction€to€hear€White'sÐ  (ð#. Ðmotion,€because€the€absence€of€a€separate€document€did€not€affectÐ 0*€%0 Ðthe€finality€of€the€judgment€and€the€parties€had€waived€theÐ À+'2 Ðseparate€document€requirement€where€both€had€understood€that€finalÐ ° Ðjudgment€had€been€entered.€€The€court€further€reasoned€that,€evenÐ @ Ðif€it€did€have€jurisdiction€to€reconsider€its€1987€decision,€it€wasÐ Ð  Ðinappropriate€to€do€so€given€that€the€dismissal€was€a€permissibleÐ ` ° Ðand€appropriate€exercise€of€the€court's€discretion,€òòMolinaroóó,€396Ð ð @ ÐU.S.€at€365„66,€and€that€the€public€interest€would€not€be€servedÐ € Ð  Ðwhen€claims€of€unconstitutional€conduct€were€reconsidered€yearsÐ `  Ðafter€the€events€in€question.€Ð  ð  ÐòòD.€White's€Motions€for€ReconsiderationóóÐ 0€  Ðà ` àWhite€did€not€file€a€notice€of€appeal€challenging€theÐ À Ð1999€Order,€but€instead€filed€a€motion€for€reconsideration€onÐ P  ÐOctober€29,€1999€(hereinafter€the€"First€Motion€forÐ à0 ÐReconsideration").€€He€argued€in€this€motion€that,€contrary€to€whatÐ pÀ Ðthe€district€court€had€found,€he€had€not€understood€that€the€1987Ð P Ðdismissal€was€final€and€therefore€could€not€have€waived€theÐ à Ðseparate€document€requirement.€€The€district€court€denied€theÐ  p Ðmotion.€òòWhiteóó€v.€òòFairóó,€No.€85„1670„WF,€R.€Doc.€28€(D.€Mass,€Sept.Ð °  Ð28,€2000)€(Wolf,€J.)€(hereinafter€"2000€Order").€€On€October€11,Ð @" Ð2000,€White€filed€a€motion€to€extend€the€time€for€filing€a€noticeÐ Ð $ Ðof€appeal€of€the€2000€Order€to€November€27,€2000,€which€was€allowedÐ `"°& Ðby€the€court.€€He€then€filed€a€timely€notice€of€appeal€on€NovemberÐ ð#@( Ð27,€2000.Ð €%Ð * Ðòòóóà ` àOn€the€same€day,€White€also€filed€a€motion€forÐ '`", Ðreconsideration€of€the€2000€Order€(hereinafter€the€"Second€MotionÐ  (ð#. Ðfor€Reconsideration"),€claiming€that€evidence€discovered€since€thatÐ 0*€%0 Ðorder€showed€that€in€July€or€August€of€1987€White€had€filed€aÐ À+'2 Ðmotion€to€vacate€the€1987€dismissal,€counteracting€any€inference€ofÐ ° Ðwaiver.€€On€May€30,€2001,€the€district€court€denied€White's€SecondÐ @ ÐMotion€for€Reconsideration.€€òòWhiteóó€v.€òòFairóó,€No.€85„1670,€R.€Doc.€46Ð Ð  Ð(D.€Mass.,€May€30,€2001)€(Wolf,€J.)€€(hereinafter€"2001€Order").€Ð ` ° ÐWhite€timely€appealed€on€June€7,€2001.€€òòóóWe€consolidated€this€appealÐ ð @ Ðwith€White's€appeal€of€the€denial€of€his€First€Motion€forÐ € Ð  ÐReconsideration.Ð `  Ðà ` àÌÓ  ÓII.Ð 0€  ÐÓú8Óà ` àOn€appeal,€White€asks€us€to€review€the€district€court'sÐ À Ðdeterminations€in€the€1987€Dismissal,€in€the€1999€Order€denyingÐ P  Ðrelief€from€the€1987€Dismissal€and€in€the€two€orders€denyingÐ à0 ÐWhite's€motions€for€reconsideration.€€On€February€7,€2001€we€askedÐ pÀ ÐWhite€to€show€cause€why€we€have€jurisdiction€to€consider€the€1987Ð P ÐDismissal€and€the€1999€Order.€€We€then€determined€on€March€26,€2001€Ð à Ðthat€the€appeal€could€go€forward€because€we€had€jurisdiction€atÐ  p Ðleast€as€to€the€denials€of€the€motions€for€reconsideration.€Ð °  ÐReserved€for€this€panel€was€the€question€of€whether€jurisdictionÐ @" Ðexists€to€review€the€1987€Dismissal€and€the€1999€Order.׃H×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€We€takeÐ Ð $ Ðup€the€relevant€jurisdictional€questions€as€we€review€each€order.€Ð ° ÐWe€hold€that€we€do€not€have€jurisdiction€to€review€the€1987Ð @ ÐDismissal,€but€find€that€White's€actions€were€sufficient€to€createÐ Ð  Ðâ âjurisdiction€as€to€the€1999€Order.€€We€nevertheless€affirm€the€1999Ð ` ° ÐOrder€on€its€merits,€as€well€as€affirm€the€denials€of€White'sÐ ° Ðmotions€for€reconsideration.Ð @ Ðâ âòòA.€The€1987€DismissalóóÐ Ð  Ðà ` àRule€4(a)€of€the€Federal€Rules€of€Appellate€ProcedureÐ ` ° Ðprovides€that€a€notice€of€appeal€in€a€civil€case€must€be€filedÐ ð @ Ð"within€30€days€after€the€judgment€or€order€appealed€from€isÐ € Ð  Ðentered."€€A€motion€for€relief€under€Rules€59€or€60€may€toll€theÐ `  Ðtime€for€appeal€until€the€entry€of€the€order€disposing€that€motion,Ð  ð  Ðbut€only€if€the€motion€is€filed€within€10€days€after€the€finalÐ 0€  Ðjudgment€is€entered.€€Fed.€R.€App.€P.€4(a)(4)(A)€(stating€that€theÐ À Ðtime€to€file€an€appeal€runs€from€the€entry€of€the€order€disposingÐ P  Ða€Rule€60€motion€if€the€Rule€60€motion€was€filed€no€later€than€10Ð à0 Ðdays€after€the€judgment€was€entered);€Fed.€R.€Civ.€P.€59€(b),€(e)Ð pÀ Ð(stating€that€a€motion€for€a€new€trial€or€a€motion€to€alter€orÐ P Ðamend€judgment€must€be€filed€within€10€days€after€entry€ofÐ à Ðjudgment).€€On€its€face,€White's€appeal€of€the€1987€dismissal€isÐ  p Ðthus€untimely.€€As€we€have€stated,€White€instead€relies€on€RuleÐ °  Ð58's€separate€document€requirement€to€argue€that€his€appeal€isÐ @" Ðtimely.€€Although€the€lack€of€a€separate€document€does€not€affectÐ Ð $ Ðthe€finality€of€the€judgment,׃[×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€òòóóthe€final€judgment€must€issue€on€aÐ `"°& Ðseparate€document€before€the€time€for€appeal€begins€to€run.Ð ð#@( Ðà ` àPreviously,€we€have€announced€a€clear€rule€that€waiver€ofÐ €%Ð * Ðthe€right€to€judgment€entered€on€a€separate€document€will€beÐ '`", Ðinferred€where€a€party€fails€to€act€within€three€months€of€theÐ ° Ðcourt's€final€order€in€a€case.€òòFioreóó€v.€òòWash.€County€Cmty.€MentalÐ @ ÐHealth€Ctr.óó,€960€F.2d€229,€236€(1òòstóó€Cir.€1992)€(en€banc).€€In€òòFioreóó,Ð Ð  Ðwe€held€that€the€plain€language€of€Rule€58,€as€well€as€SupremeÐ ` ° ÐCourt€precedent€in€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòIndrelunasóó,€411€U.S.€216Ð ð @ Ð(1973),€and€òòBankers€Trustóó,€435€U.S.€381,€dictated€a€mechanicalÐ € Ð  Ðapplication€of€the€separate€document€requirement€in€all€finalÐ `  Ðorders.€€960€F.2d€at€234.€€We€nevertheless€concluded€that€anÐ  ð  Ðinference€of€waiver€was€also€permitted€where€the€parties€failed€toÐ 0€  Ðtake€any€action€in€the€case€for€three€months€or€more:Ð À ÐÓÓà8 ` àIf€we€were€to€hold€without€qualification€thatÐ P  Ða€judgment€is€not€final€until€the€court€issuesÐ h Ða€separate€document,€we€would€open€up€theÐ à0 Ðpossibility€that€long€dormant€cases€could€beÐ ¨ø Ðrevived€years€after€the€parties€had€consideredÐ pÀ Ðthem€to€be€over.€€€We€hasten€to€shut€off€thatÐ 8ˆ Ðprospect.€.€.€.€We€believe€it€appropriate,Ð P Ðabsent€exceptional€circumstances,€to€inferÐ È Ðwaiver€where€a€party€fails€to€act€within€threeÐ à Ðmonths€of€the€court's€last€order€in€the€case.€Ð X¨ Ð.€.€.€€A€party€wishing€to€pursue€an€appeal€andÐ  p Ðawaiting€the€separate€document€of€judgmentÐ è8 Ðfrom€the€trial€court€can,€and€should,€withinÐ °  Ðthat€period€file€a€motion€for€entry€ofÐ xÈ! Ðjudgment.€€This€approach€will€guard€againstÐ @" Ðthe€loss€of€review€for€those€actually€desiringÐ  X# Ða€timely€appeal€while€preventing€resurrectionÐ Ð $ Ðof€litigation€long€treated€as€dead€by€theÐ ˜!è% Ðparties.ÓGIÓÐ`"°&` x` x Ð960€F.2d€at€235€(internal€citation€omitted).€€White's€attempt€toÐ ð#@( Ðseek€appellate€review€of€the€1987€Dismissal,€coming€fourteen€yearsÐ €%Ð * Ðafter€final€action€on€his€habeas€petition,€is€precisely€the€type€ofÐ '`", Ð"resurrection€of€litigation€long€treated€as€dead€by€the€parties"Ð  (ð#. Ðâ âthat€we€sought€to€prevent€with€our€holding€in€òòFioreóó.€Ð 0*€%0 Ðà ` àWhite€nevertheless€makes€four€arguments€for€why€òòFioreóóÐ ° Ðâ âshould€not€govern€this€case.€€First,€he€argues€that€our€decision€inÐ @ ÐòòFioreóó€post„dates€the€1987€dismissal€and€therefore€cannot€be€appliedÐ Ð  Ðretroactively€to€his€delay€in€seeking€an€appeal€of€that€order.€Ð ` ° ÐThis€argument€is€without€merit.€€Even€assuming€that€òòFioreóó€does€notÐ ð @ Ðapply€to€White's€delay€from€1987€to€1992,€the€year€in€which€òòFioreóóÐ € Ð  Ðwas€decided,€White€continued€to€let€the€case€lie€dormant€anotherÐ `  Ðfive€years€through€1997,€and€only€sought€appellate€review€in€2000.€Ð  ð  Ðà ` àSecond,€White€contends€that€òòFioreóó€should€not€governÐ 0€  Ðhabeas€cases,€given€the€strong€policy€articulated€by€the€SupremeÐ À ÐCourt€in€favor€of€reaching€the€merits€of€habeas€corpus€petitions.Ð P  ÐHowever,€none€of€the€cases€cited€by€White€to€support€thisÐ à0 Ðproposition׃I×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€speak€to€the€situation€we€have€here,€which€involves€anÐ pÀ Ðapparent€abandonment€of€the€right€to€appeal€a€habeas€petitionÐ P Ðdenial.€òòóó€Any€preference€for€reaching€the€merits€of€a€writ€of€habeasÐ à Ðcorpus€goes€to€the€question€of€whether€or€not€the€district€courtÐ  p Ðshould€have€dismissed€White's€original€petition€with€prejudice.€Ð °  ÐOur€focus€here,€however,€is€not€the€dismissal€itself€but€the€delayÐ @" Ðin€appealing€the€dismissal.€€We€see€nothing€in€the€precedent€citedÐ Ð $ Ðby€White€to€convince€us€that€a€long€delay€in€appealing€the€denialÐ `"°& Ðof€a€habeas€petition€should€be€excused€on€the€grounds€that€theÐ ° Ðmerits€cannot€otherwise€be€reached.€€Ð @ Ðà ` àThird,€White€suggests€that€òòFioreóó€is€inconsistent€with€theÐ Ð  Ðpolicy€and€purposes€of€Rule€58€as€articulated€in€the€SupremeÐ ` ° ÐCourt's€rulings.òòóó€€Although€White€is€not€explicit€in€pointing€us€toÐ ð @ Ðthe€specific€rulings€he€has€in€mind,€we€take€him€to€be€referring€toÐ € Ð  ÐòòIndrelunasóó€and€òòBankers€Trustóó,€both€of€which€directed€courts€toÐ `  Ðapply€mechanically€the€Rule€58€separate€document€requirement.€Ð  ð  ÐòòBankers€Trustóó€additionally€found,€as€we€acknowledged€in€òòFioreóó,€960Ð 0€  ÐF.2d€at€235,€that€relaxing€the€technicality€of€the€rule€wasÐ À Ðpermissible€in€circumstances€where€a€separate€document€was€notÐ P  Ðentered€but€appellant€nonetheless€filed€a€notice€of€appeal€withoutÐ à0 Ðobjection€from€the€appellee.€€435€U.S.€at€386„88.€€Interpreting€Ð pÀ ÐòòBankers€Trustóó€to€permit€relaxation€of€the€separate€documentÐ P Ðrequirement€òòonlyóó€in€circumstances€where€it€would€effectuate€theÐ à Ðright€of€appeal,€several€of€our€sister€circuits€have€rejected€theÐ  p ÐòòFioreóó€approach€as€inconsistent€with€a€mechanical€application€ofÐ °  ÐRule€58.€€òòSeeóó€òòHammackóó€v.€òòBaroid€Corp.óó,€142€F.3d€266,€270€(5òòthóó€Cir.Ð @" Ð1998);€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòHaynesóó,€158€F.3d€1327,€1330„31€(D.C.€Cir.Ð Ð $ Ð1998);€òòRubinóó€v.€òòSchottenstein,€Zox€&€Dunnóó,€143€F.3d€263,€270€(6thÐ `"°& ÐCir.€1998)€(en€banc)€(explaining€that,€on€the€Rule€58€question,€theÐ ð#@( Ðen€banc€court€was€convinced€by€panel's€reasoning€in€vacated€òòRubinóóÐ €%Ð * Ðv.€òòSchottenstein,€Zox€&€Dunn,óó€110€F.3d€1247,€1250„53€(6òòthóó€Cir.Ð '`", Ð1997),€which€included€a€footnote€rejecting€the€òòFioreóó€waiver€rule).Ð  (ð#. Ðà ` àUnlike€our€sister€circuits,€we€do€not€take€the€positionÐ 0*€%0 Ðthat€òòIndrelunasóó€and€òòBankers€Trustóó€preclude€all€findings€of€waiverÐ À+'2 Ðòòagainstóó€the€appealing€party.€òòóóWe€specifically€stated€so€in€òòFioreóó:Ð ° Ð"We€see€no€conflict€between€this€conclusion€and€Supreme€CourtÐ @ Ðprecedent€suggesting€that€Rule€58's€technical€requirements€shouldÐ Ð  Ðbe€relaxed€only€to€assist€an€appeal,€not€to€foreclose€one."€960Ð ` ° ÐF.2d€at€236€n.11.€€The€separate€document€requirement€was€designedÐ ð @ Ðto€assist€a€party€actively€seeking€an€appeal€by€eliminatingÐ € Ð  Ðconfusion€as€to€the€definite€date€by€which€the€party€would€have€toÐ `  Ðfile€the€notice€of€appeal.€€òòSeeóó€òòBankers€Trustóó,€435€U.S.€at€384„85Ð  ð  Ð(stating€that€"[t]he€separate€document€requirement€was€thusÐ 0€  Ðintended€to€avoid€the€inequities€that€were€inherent€when€a€partyÐ À Ðappealed€from€a€document€or€docket€entry€that€appeared€to€be€aÐ P  Ðfinal€judgment€of€the€district€court€only€to€have€the€appellateÐ à0 Ðcourt€announce€later€that€an€earlier€document€or€entry€had€been€theÐ pÀ Ðjudgment€.€.€.€.")€€Its€purpose€was€not€to€enable€a€party€to€appealÐ P Ða€decision€years€later,€when€that€party€had€shown€no€inclination€toÐ à Ðdo€so€in€a€timely€fashion.€€We€thus€decline,€especially€in€theÐ  p Ðcontext€of€a€14„year€delay€in€appealing€what€was€admittedly€a€finalÐ °  Ðjudgment,€to€revisit€our€holding€that€"[w]hen€a€party€allows€a€caseÐ @" Ðto€become€dormant€for€.€.€.€a€prolonged€period€of€time,€it€isÐ Ð $ Ðreasonable€to€presume€that€it€views€the€case€as€over."€€òòFioreóó,€960Ð `"°& ÐF.2d€at€236.€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòFalls€Stamping€and€Welding€Co.óó€v.€òòInt'lÐ ð#@( ÐUnion,€United€Auto.€Workers,óó€744€F.2d€521,€526€(6òòthóó€Cir.€1984)Ð €%Ð * Ð(finding€that,€although€facts€were€distinguishable,€"[w]hat€òòcanóó€beÐ '`", Ðextracted€from€[òòBankers€Trustóó]€and€applied€here€is€the€generalÐ  (ð#. Ðprinciple€that€the€requirements€of€Rule€58€may€be€waived€underÐ 0*€%0 Ðcertain€circumstances"€and€that€"in€determining€the€appropriatenessÐ À+'2 Ðof€waiver,€the€Court€in€[òòBankers€Trustóó]€emphasized€a€common„senseÐ ° Ðapplication€of€Rule€58€rather€than€a€technical€application€as€longÐ @ Ðas€no€parties€have€been€misled").׃J×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð Ð  Ðà ` àFinally,€White€asserts€that€his€actions€following€theÐ ` ° Ð1987€dismissal€evidence€the€fact€that€he€intended€all€along€toÐ ð @ Ðchallenge€the€court's€order€and€therefore€rebut€any€inference€ofÐ € Ð  Ðwaiver€under€òòFioreóó.€€We€have€already€detailed€the€limited€actionsÐ `  ÐWhite€took€regarding€his€habeas€petition€following€his€capture€andÐ  ð  Ðreturn€to€prison.€€We€put€aside€for€now€White's€claim€that€heÐ 0€  Ðprepared€and€mailed€a€motion€to€vacate€the€dismissal€in€August€ofÐ À Ð1987,€as€we€find€that€his€claim,€introduced€only€in€his€SecondÐ P  ÐMotion€for€Reconsideration,€is€not€admissible€at€this€stage.€€òòSeeóóÐ à0 Ðòòinfraóó€Part€D.€€As€to€the€evidence€that€White€corresponded€with€theÐ pÀ Ðdistrict€court€in€1990,€we€are€unconvinced€that€his€letters€wereÐ P Ðsufficient€to€overcome€an€inference€of€waiver,€especially€when€theyÐ à Ðwere€written€some€three€years€after€the€1987€dismissal€and€were€notÐ  p Ðfollowed€up€with€any€motions€or€appeals€in€federal€court€forÐ °  Ðanother€seven€years.€€Similarly,€even€if€we€credit€White'sÐ @" Ðassertion€that€he€initially€thought€he€could€revive€his€federalÐ Ð $ Ðhabeas€petition€only€after€exhausting€his€state€remedies,€he€hasÐ `"°& Ðprovided€no€credible€explanation€for€why€he€continued€to€delayÐ ° Ðseeking€federal€relief,€even€after€this€1990€correspondenceÐ @ Ðindicated€an€intention€to€do€so.€Ð Ð  Ðà ` àMoreover,€whatever€confusion€White€may€have€had€as€to€theÐ ` ° Ðstatus€of€the€dismissal,€it€did€not€stem€from€the€fact€that€theÐ ð @ Ðjudgment€was€not€entered€on€a€separate€document.€€òòFioreóó's€holdingÐ € Ð  Ðwas€anchored€in€the€broader€principle€that€judgment€on€a€separateÐ `  Ðdocument€should€not€be€required€where€waiving€it€would€not€misleadÐ  ð  Ðor€prejudice€the€appellee.€€òòBankers€Trustóó,€435€U.S.€at€387;€òòseeÐ 0€  Ðalsoóó€òòFioreóó,€960€F.2d€at€236€n.11€("The€three„month€period€generallyÐ À Ðshould€ensure€that€a€failure€to€appeal€was€a€matter€of€choice,€notÐ P  Ðconfusion€.€.€.€.").€€Certainly€nothing€in€White's€actions€suggestÐ à0 Ðthat€he€would€have€properly€appealed€the€1987€Dismissal€but€for€theÐ pÀ Ðfact€that€he€believed€no€final€judgment€triggering€the€running€ofÐ P Ðthe€time€for€appeal€had€issued.€€As€such,€he€was€not€"prejudiced€orÐ à Ðmisled€by€lack€of€a€separate€document."€òòWang€Labs.óó,€926€F.2d€at€96.€Ð  p Ðòòóóà ` àWe€therefore€find€that€White€has€waived€his€right€toÐ °  Ðjudgment€on€a€separate€document,€making€his€appeal€of€the€1987Ð @" ÐDismissal€untimely.€€We€do€not€reach€the€merits€of€the€dismissal.Ð Ð $ ÐòòB.€The€1999€OrderóóÐ `"°& Ðà ` àWhite's€November€27,€2000€notice€of€appeal€also€statedÐ ð#@( Ðthat€he€wished€to€appeal€from€the€September€27,€1999€order€denyingÐ €%Ð * Ðhis€motion€for€relief.€€Although€White€filed€the€First€Motion€for€Ð '`", ÐReconsideration€following€the€1999€Order,€the€time€for€appealingÐ  (ð#. Ðthe€1999€Order€was€not€tolled€because€the€motion€forÐ 0*€%0 Ðreconsideration,€filed€on€October€29,€1999,€post„dated€the€order€byÐ À+'2 Ðmore€than€ten€days.€€Fed.€R.€App.€P.€4(a)(4)(A);€Fed.€R.€Civ.€P.Ð ° Ð59.€€White€relies€again€on€the€lack€of€a€separate€document€settingÐ @ Ðforth€the€1999€order€to€argue€that€his€14€month€delay€in€seekingÐ Ð  Ðthe€appeal€should€be€excused.€€A€review€of€the€record€indicatesÐ ` ° Ðthat€the€order€was€indeed€not€entered€on€a€separate€document.€Ð ð @ ÐAlthough€appellee€has€encouraged€us€to€find€that€White€also€waivedÐ € Ð  Ðthe€separate€document€requirement€as€to€the€1999€Order,€neitherÐ `  ÐWhite€nor€appellee€have€briefed€us€on€whether€òòFioreóó€can€be€appliedÐ  ð  Ðto€the€facts€as€they€relate€to€this€order.€€In€particular,€we€noteÐ 0€  Ðthat€the€First€Motion€for€Reconsideration€referred€to€above€wasÐ À Ðfiled€within€three€months€of€the€1999€Order.€€Although€White€didÐ P  Ðnot€take€action€by€"fil[ing]€a€motion€for€entry€of€judgment,"€weÐ à0 Ðare€not€prepared€to€say,€on€the€facts€of€this€case,€that€WhiteÐ pÀ Ð"fail[ed]€to€act€within€three€months€of€the€court's€last€order€inÐ P Ðthe€case"€within€the€meaning€of€òòFioreóó,€€960€F.2d€236,€and€thereforeÐ à Ðdecline€to€infer€waiver.׃K×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð  p ÐÓ  ÓÓ  Óà ` àHaving€determined€that€we€have€jurisdiction€to€review€theÐ °  Ð1999€Order,€we€easily€affirm€it.€€We€review€the€district€court'sÐ @" Ðrefusal€to€grant€favorable€reconsideration€for€abuse€of€discretion.€Ð Ð $ ÐòòSeeóó€òòMackinóó€v.€òòCity€of€Bostonóó,€969€F.2d€1273,€1279€(1òòstóó€Cir.€1992);Ð ° ÐòòParrilla„Lopezóó€v.€òòUnited€Statesóó,€841€F.2d€16,€19€(1òòstóó€Cir.€1988);Ð @ ÐòòPaganóó€v.€òòAm.€Airlines,€Inc.óó,€534€F.2d€990,€993€(1òòstóó€Cir.€1976)ÓN.°°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#°,X°` ¨ ƒXNÓ.€€WeÐ Ð  Ðhave€already€established€that€White€waived€the€separate€documentÐ ` ° Ðrequirement€as€to€the€1987€Dismissal.€€Hence,€for€the€same€reasonsÐ ð @ Ðthat€we€now€lack€jurisdiction€to€review€the€1987€Dismissal,׃R×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€theÐ € Ð  Ðdistrict€court€properly€determined€that€it€would€not,€indeed€couldÐ `  Ðnot,€exercise€its€discretion€to€review€the€ten„year€old€dismissal.׃UH ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð  ð  Ѐà  àWe€accordingly€move€on€to€the€denials€of€White's€First€andÐ ° ÐSecond€Motions€for€Reconsideration€for€which€timely€appeals€wereÐ @ Ðfiled.Ð Ð  ÐòòC.€Denial€of€the€First€Motion€for€ReconsiderationóóÐ ` ° Ðà  àIn€his€First€Motion€for€Reconsideration,€White€argued€that€theÐ ð @ Ð1999€Order€rested€on€inaccurate€assumptions€of€material€factÐ € Ð  Ðconcerning€his€knowledge€and€intentions€following€the€1987Ð `  ÐDismissal.€€€White€contended€that€his€post„1987€dismissal€conductÐ  ð  Ðreflected€an€ignorance€of€legal€procedure€as€well€as€misguidedÐ 0€  Ðefforts€to€pursue€an€exhaustion€of€state€remedies€before€returningÐ À Ðto€federal€court.€€As€such,€he€claimed,€his€conduct€could€not€beÐ P  Ðinterpreted€as€indicative€of€an€intent€to€abandon€the€habeasÐ à0 Ðprocess€and€waive€the€separate€document€requirement.€€In€denyingÐ pÀ Ðthis€motion,€the€district€court€held€that€any€confusion€on€White'sÐ P Ðpart€as€to€the€status€of€his€case€„„€i.e.€whether€it€was€on€holdÐ à Ðpending€exhaustion€of€state€remedies€„„€could€not€be€attributed€toÐ  p Ðthe€absence€of€judgment€having€been€entered€on€a€separate€documentÐ °  Ðand€reiterated€its€position€that€a€delay€of€ten€years€beforeÐ @" Ðseeking€post„judgment€relief€constituted€waiver.€€2000€Order€at€4„Ð Ð $ Ð5.Ð `"°& Ðà  àAs€already€noted,€we€review€the€denial€of€a€motion€forÐ ð#@( Ðreconsideration€for€abuse€of€discretion.€€òòSeeóó€òòMackin,óó€969€F.2d€atÐ €%Ð * Ð1279;€òòParrilla„Lopezóó,€841€F.2d€at€19;€òòPaganóó,€534€F.2d€at€993ÓB.°°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#°°XBÓ.€€InÐ '`", Ðthe€context€of€determining€our€own€jurisdiction€to€hear€White'sÐ  (ð#. Ðappeal,€we€discussed€his€actions€following€the€1987€dismissal€andÐ 0*€%0 Ðheld€that€they€did€not€counteract€a€finding€of€waiver.€€WeÐ À+'2 Ðaccordingly€affirm€the€district€court's€denial€of€White's€FirstÐ ° ÐMotion€for€Reconsideration.€Ð @ ÐòòD.€Denial€of€the€Second€Motion€for€ReconsiderationÐ Ð  Ðóóà  àWhite€filed€his€Second€Motion€for€Reconsideration,€whichÐ ` ° Ðrequested€the€district€court€to€reverse€the€denial€of€his€FirstÐ ð @ ÐMotion€for€Reconsideration,€on€the€grounds€that€he€had€in€theÐ € Ð  Ðinterim€discovered€that,€following€his€capture€and€return€toÐ `  ÐMassachusetts,€he€had€signed€and€mailed€a€motion€to€vacate€the€1987Ð  ð  ÐDismissal€(hereinafter€"1987€Motion€to€Vacate").€€The€1987€MotionÐ 0€  Ðto€Vacate€was€allegedly€prepared€by€a€jail€house€lawyer,€WilliamÐ À ÐGilday,€and€signed€and€put€in€the€prison€mail€system€by€White€inÐ P  ÐAugust€of€1987.€€White€argued€that€this€evidence€showed€that€he€hadÐ à0 Ðattempted€to€revive€his€habeas€petition€within€a€reasonable€timeÐ pÀ Ðframe€and€therefore€contradicted€the€district€court's€finding€ofÐ P Ðwaiver.׃O×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€White€further€argued€that€his€failure€to€previously€bringÐ à Ðthis€information€to€the€attention€of€the€court€should€be€excused€byÐ  p Ðthe€fact€that€he€had€forgotten€that€he€had€filed€the€motion.€€InÐ °  Ðhis€affidavit€in€support€of€the€Second€Motion€for€Reconsideration,Ð @" ÐWhite€stated€that€Gilday€reminded€him€of€the€1987€Motion€to€VacateÐ Ð $ Ð"several€months€[before€November€2000],"€after€Gilday's€transfer€toÐ ° Ðthe€facility€in€which€White€was€incarcerated.€€Gilday€filed€anÐ @ Ðaffidavit€stating€that€he€found€an€unsigned€copy€of€the€1987€MotionÐ Ð  Ðto€Vacate€in€September€2000,€after€inventorying€legal€papers€thatÐ ` ° Ðhad€been€seized€in€1991€and€returned€to€him€the€previous€month,€andÐ ð @ Ðthat€he€brought€the€letter€to€White's€counsel's€attention€inÐ € Ð  ÐOctober€2000.€€Relying€on€these€facts€to€argue€that€the€1987€MotionÐ `  Ðto€Vacate€was€newly€discovered€evidence€within€the€meaning€of€RuleÐ  ð  Ð60(b)€of€the€Federal€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure,€White€contended€thatÐ 0€  Ðthe€district€court€was€therefore€authorized€to€reconsider€itsÐ À Ðdenial€of€White's€First€Motion€for€Reconsideration.Ð P  Ðà  àThe€district€court€held€that,€notwithstanding€White's€allegedÐ à0 Ðefforts€in€1987€to€move€for€reconsideration,€the€court's€positionÐ pÀ Ðthat€White€had€waived€the€separate€document€requirement€would€notÐ P Ðchange.€€First,€the€court€explained,€White€had€not€been€misled€byÐ à Ðthe€failure€of€the€court€to€comply€with€the€separate€documentÐ  p Ðrequirement;€if€anything,€the€alleged€1987€Motion€to€VacateÐ °  Ðevidenced€that€White€had€understood€the€1987€Dismissal€to€be€final.€Ð @" Ð2001€Order€at€13.€€Second,€the€court€pointed€out€that,€evenÐ Ð $ Ðassuming€White€had€filed€the€1987€Motion€to€Vacate,€the€ten€yearÐ `"°& Ðgap€between€that€motion€and€the€1997€motion€for€relief€could€stillÐ ð#@( Ðarguably€constitute€waiver.€òòId.óó€€Alternatively,€the€district€courtÐ €%Ð * Ðalso€concluded€that€the€alleged€1987€Motion€to€Vacate€was€notÐ '`", Ð"newly€discovered€evidence"€within€the€meaning€of€Rule€60(b)(2),Ð  (ð#. Ðâ âand€that,€moreover,€the€factual€record€did€not€support€White'sÐ 0*€%0 Ðassertion€that€he€had€indeed€filed€the€motion.€€2001€Order€at€13„Ð ° Ð14.€Ð @ Ðâ âà  àOnce€again,€we€review€the€district€court's€denial€of€theÐ Ð  ÐSecond€Motion€for€Reconsideration€for€abuse€of€discretion.€òòSeeóóÐ ` ° ÐòòMackinóó,€969€F.2d€at€1279;€òòParrilla„Lopezóó,€841€F.2d€at€19;€òòPaganóó,Ð ð @ Ð534€F.2d€at€993.€Succeeding€on€a€motion€under€Rule€60(b)(2)Ð € Ð  Ðrequires€the€movant€to€demonstrate€that€the€evidence€could€not€haveÐ `  Ðbeen€discovered€earlier€by€the€exercise€of€due€diligence.€€òòSeeóóÐ  ð  ÐòòMitchellóó€v.€òòUnited€Statesóó,€141€F.3d€8,€18€(1òòstóó€Cir.€1998);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóóÐ 0€  ÐòòPutnam€Resourcesóó€v.€òòPatemanóó,€757€F.€Supp.€157,€170€(D.R.I.€1991)Ð À Ð(holding€that€even€if€the€movant€was€not€aware€of€the€evidence€atÐ P  Ðthe€time€of€the€trial,€the€movant€must€be€able€to€explain€why€theÐ à0 Ðevidence€was€undiscoverable).òòóó€€Under€this€standard,€we€cannot€sayÐ pÀ Ðthat€the€district€court€abused€its€discretion€when€it€held€thatÐ P ÐWhite€"should€have€been€aware€of€the€existence€of€this€'evidence'Ð à Ðand€he€cannot€now€persuasively€assert€that€it€has€been€'newly'Ð  p Ðdiscovered."€2001€Order€at€14.€€Furthermore,€we€defer€to€theÐ °  Ðdistrict€court's€determination€that,€even€if€the€1987€Motion€toÐ @" ÐVacate€could€be€considered€newly€discovered€evidence,€it€would€notÐ Ð $ Ðhave€aided€White's€cause.€€In€the€context€of€a€delay€of€multipleÐ `"°& Ðyears,€the€alleged€mailing€of€one€motion,€which€apparently€wasÐ ð#@( Ðnever€received€by€the€court€and€never€mentioned€in€White'sÐ €%Ð * Ðsubsequent€correspondence€with€the€court,€is€hardly€compellingÐ '`", Ðenough€to€warrant€re„opening€a€long€dormant€case,€especially€whereÐ  (ð#. Ðâ âreconsideration€is€discretionary.€€We€see€no€abuse€of€discretionÐ 0*€%0 Ðhere€and€affirm€the€denial€of€White's€Second€Motion€forÐ ° ÐReconsideration.Ð @ Ðâ âà  à¹Ó"~ÓIII.Ð ` ° ÐÓ  Óà  àWe€accordingly€hold€that€we€lack€jurisdiction€to€review€theÐ ð @ Ð1987€Dismissal€and€òòaffirmóó€the€remaining€three€district€court€ordersÐ € Ð  Ðbefore€us€on€appeal.€Ð  `  ÐÓ ÓÓ  ÓÌÓÓÓ ÓÓ  ÓAPPENDIX:Ð @ ÐRules€Submitted€to€the€Supreme€Court,€November€2001Ð X ÐÓ½¤ÓÓ ¯¤ÓÌÌòòProposed€Amendments€to€Rule€58€of€the€FederalÐ ` ° ÐRules€of€Civil€ProcedureÐ ( x ÐóóÌRule€58.€Entry€of€JudgmentÐ ¸   ÐÌÓ?+Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ü!°°X?Ó(a)€Separate€Document.Ð H ˜  ÐÌ(1)€Every€judgment€and€amended€judgment€must€beÐ Ø(  Ðset€forth€on€a€separate€document,€but€a€separateÐ  ð  Ðdocument€is€not€required€for€an€order€disposing€ofÐ h¸  Ða€motion:Ð 0€  ÐÌ(A)€for€judgment€under€Rule€50(b);Ð À ÐÌ(B)€to€amend€or€make€additional€findings€of€factÐ P  Ðunder€Rule€52(b);Ð h ÐÌ(C)€for€attorney€fees€under€Rule€54;Ð ¨ø ÐÌ(D)€for€a€new€trial,€or€to€alter€or€amend€theÐ 8ˆ Ðjudgment,€under€Rule€59;€orÐ P ÐÌ(E)€for€relief€under€Rule€60.Ð à ÐÌ(2)€Subject€to€Rule€54(b):Ð  p ÐÌ(A)€unless€the€court€orders€otherwise,€the€clerkÐ °  Ðmust,€without€awaiting€the€court's€direction,Ð xÈ! Ðpromptly€prepare,€sign,€and€enter€the€judgmentÐ @" Ðwhen:Ð  X# ÐÌ(i)€the€jury€returns€a€general€verdict,Ð ˜!è% ÐÌ(ii)€the€court€awards€only€costs€or€a€sum€certain,Ð (#x' ÐorÐ ð#@( ÐÌ(iii)€the€court€denies€all€relief;Ð €%Ð * ÐÌ(B)€the€court€must€promptly€approve€the€form€ofÐ '`", Ðthe€judgment,€which€the€clerk€must€promptly€enter,Ð Ø'(#- Ðwhen:Ð  (ð#. ÐÌ(i)€the€jury€returns€a€special€verdict€or€aÐ 0*€%0 Ðgeneral€verdict€accompanied€by€interrogatories,€orÐ ø*H&1 Ðâ âÐ À+'2 Ð(ii)€the€court€grants€other€relief€not€describedÐ ° Ðâ âin€Rule€58(a)(2).Ð xÈ ÐÌ(b)€Time€of€Entry.€Judgment€is€entered€forÐ X Ðpurposes€of€these€rules:Ð Ð  ÐÌ(1)€if€Rule€58(a)(1)€does€not€require€a€separateÐ ` ° Ðdocument,€when€it€is€entered€in€the€civil€docketÐ ( x Ðunder€Rule€79(a),€and€Ð ð @ ÐÌ(2)€if€Rule€58(a)(1)€requires€a€separate€document,Ð € Ð  Ðwhen€it€is€entered€in€the€civil€docket€under€RuleÐ H ˜  Ð79(a)€and€when€the€earlier€of€these€events€occurs:Ð `  ÐÌ(A)€when€it€is€set€forth€on€a€separate€document,Ð  ð  ÐorÐ h¸  ÐÌ(B)€when€150€days€have€run€from€entry€in€the€civilÐ øH  Ðdocket€under€Rule€79(a).Ð À ÐÌ(c)€Cost€or€Fee€Awards.Ð P  ÐÌ(1)€Entry€of€judgment€may€not€be€delayed,€nor€theÐ à0 Ðtime€for€appeal€extended,€in€order€to€tax€costs€orÐ ¨ø Ðaward€fees,€except€as€provided€in€Rule€58(c)(2).Ð pÀ ÐÌ(2)€When€a€timely€motion€for€attorney€fees€is€madeÐ P Ðunder€Rule€54(d)(2),€the€court€may€act€before€aÐ È Ðnotice€of€appeal€has€been€filed€and€has€becomeÐ à Ðeffective€to€order€that€the€motion€have€the€sameÐ X¨ Ðeffect€under€Federal€Rule€of€Appellate€ProcedureÐ  p Ð4(a)(4)€as€a€timely€motion€under€Rule€59.Ð è8 ÐÌ(d)€Request€for€Entry.€A€party€may€request€thatÐ xÈ! Ðjudgment€be€set€forth€on€a€separate€document€asÐ @" Ðrequired€by€Rule€58(a)(1).Ð  X# ÐÌÌòòProposed€Amendments€to€Rule€4(a)€of€the€FederalÐ `"°& ÐRules€of€Appellate€ProcedureóóÐ (#x' ÐÌRule€4.€Appeal€as€of€Right€„„€When€TakenÐ ¸$ ) ÐÌÓ?+Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ü!ÜÜŒX?Ó(a)€Appeal€in€a€Civil€Case.Ð H&˜!+ ÐÌà  àà ` à*****Ð Ø'(#- ÐÌ(7)€Entry€Defined.Ð h)¸$/ ÐÌ(A)€A€judgment€or€order€is€entered€for€purposes€ofÐ ø*H&1 Ðthis€Rule€4(a):Ð À+'2 Ðà€  < àˆÐ ˆ,Ø'3 Ð(i)€if€Federal€Rule€of€Civil€Procedure€58(a)(1)Ð ° Ðdoes€not€require€a€separate€document,€when€theÐ xÈ Ðjudgment€or€order€is€entered€in€the€civil€docketÐ @ Ðunder€Federal€Rule€of€Civil€Procedure€79(a);€orÐ X ÐÌ(ii)€if€Federal€Rule€of€Civil€Procedure€58(a)(1)Ð ˜è Ðrequires€a€separate€document,€when€the€judgment€orÐ ` ° Ðorder€is€entered€in€the€civil€docket€under€FederalÐ ( x ÐRule€of€Civil€Procedure€79(a)€and€when€the€earlierÐ ð @ Ðof€these€events€occurs:Ð ¸   ÐÓ€ F>@ABCDE( ¬x3ÓÌÓ€ m>@ABCDEo(¹ˆxxF>@ABCDEÓÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  ÝÝ‚3£¸ÝÔ2¹ˆÔð2ðÔ3  Ôà0  àÝ  Ýthe€judgment€or€order€is€set€forth€on€aÐ H ˜  Ðseparate€document,€or݃3£¸;¸ÝŒÐ`    ÐŒÝ  ÝÌÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  ÝÝ‚3£¹ÝÔ2¹ˆÔð2ðÔ3  Ôà0  àÝ  Ý150€days€have€run€from€entry€of€the€judgmentÐ  ð  Ðor€order€in€the€civil€docket€under€FederalÐ h¸  ÐRule€of€Civil€Procedure€79(a).݃3£¹C¹ÝŒÐ0€    ÐŒÝ  ÝÌ(B)€A€failure€to€set€forth€a€judgment€or€order€onÐ À Ða€separate€document€when€required€by€Federal€RuleÐ ˆØ Ðof€Civil€Procedure€58(a)(1)€does€not€affect€theÐ P  Ðvalidity€of€an€appeal€from€that€judgment€or€order.Ó¤ÓÐ h Ðà  àà ` à*****Ð ¨ø ÐÌÓÓFederal€Rulemaking,€Pending€Rules€AmendmentsÐ È ÐAwaiting€Final€Action,€Amendments€Submitted€to€theÐ à ÐSupreme€Court€(November€2001),€òòavailable€atóóÐ X¨ Ðhttp://www.uscourts.gov/rules/supct1101.html.