from the Court of Appeals. The district court, pursuant to Crateo, Inc. v. Intermark, Inc., 536 F.2d 862 (9th Cir.1976), indicated “that it [was] not willing to ‘entertain’ or grant Plaintiffs’ Rule 60(b) motion.” On February 15, 2001, the Millers filed a Notice of Appeal of the district court’s Rule 60(b) order. On May 21, 2001, a screening panel dismissed the appeal of the Rule 60(b) order for lack of jurisdiction because the order was procedural and not a final determination on the merits. DISCUSSION The present appeal must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The filing of an effective notice of appeal is a jurisdictional requirement which cannot be waived. See Vernon v. Heckler, 811 F.2d 1274, 1276 (9th Cir.1987); see also Tripati v. Henman, 845 F.2d 205, 206 (9th Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>). Rule 4(a)(4) of the Federal Rules of
holding that an effective notice of appeal must be filed for this court to have jurisdiction to hear the case holding that the court did not have jurisdiction to hear an appeal after an untimely filing of a notice of appeal holding that the lower court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case because it was filed without proper authority holding in pertinent part that this court lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal holding that this court lacked jurisdiction to hear a cue claim raised for the first time on appeal