Cir.2002); In re Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d 245, 251 (3d Cir.1997) vening change in the law has rendered the conduct for which McAdory was convicted non-criminal, he cannot proceed under the approach recognized in Dorsainvil. See id. at 252. Further, McAdory’s inability to satisfy the gatekeeping requirements of § 2255 does not render the remedy inadequate or ineffective. Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d at 251. Accordingly, the District Court properly dismissed the § 2241 petition. Finally, we conclude that the District Court properly denied McAdory’s motion to alter or amend the judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e). To the extent that McAdo-ry sought to simply reargue claims previously raised, the District Court properly denied the Rule 59(e) motion. See Lazaridis v. Wehmer, 591 F.3d 666, 669 (3d Cir.2010) (<HOLDING>). McAdory also argued that the Supreme Court’s
holding that motions for reconsideration are not appropriate if the movant asks the court to hear new arguments or supporting facts that could have been presented originally holding that complaint on appeal must be the same as that presented in the trial court recognizing that both final and nonfinal orders may be the subject of motions for reconsideration holding that reconsideration may not be based on evidence and legal arguments that could have been presented at the time of the challenged decision holding that reconsideration pursuant to rule 59 cannot be premised on the same arguments presented in the complaint and motions