v. Farmville Mfg. Co., 705 F.2d 1307, 1307 (11th Cir.1983) (per curiam). The district court’s denial of the Rule 59(e) motion based on a miscom-prehension of the law was an abuse of discretion. United States v. Merrill, 513 F.3d 1293, 1301 (11th Cir.2008). However, we affirm the denial on the merits. See Parks v. City of Warner Robins, 43 F.3d 609, 613 (11th Cir.1995) (“[W]e may affirm the district court’s decision on any adequate ground, even if it is other than the one on which the court actually relied.”). The appellants here simply failed to litigate the agency or instrumentality issue when they had notice of the proceedings. They then attempted to use the Rule 59(e) motion to reopen litigation, an improper basis for moving under Rule 59(e). Michael Linet, Inc., 408 F.3d at 763 (<HOLDING>). We thus affirm the denial of the motion. The
holding that an appeal from a denial of a rule 59e motion should have been construed as seeking review of the underlying judgment holding that a party may not use a rule 60b motion as an occasion to relitigate its case holding that an argument raised for the first time in a rule 59e motion is waived on appeal holding that rule 59e applies to a motion to reconsider holding that a party cannot use a rule 59e motion to relitigate old matters raise argument or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment