971 F.2d 329, 332 (9th Cir.1992) (en banc) (acknowledging our jurisdiction to determine whether the district court had jurisdiction over Rule 60(b) motion). We DISMISS the remainder of the Millers’ appeals for lack of jurisdiction until such time as the district court rules on the Millers’ pending Rule 60(b) motions. VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART. Each party shall bear its own costs on appeal. 1 . The district court’s order was based on our decision in Smith v. Lujan, 588 F.2d 1304, 1307 (9th Cir.1979). However, Smith was decided before Rule 4 was amended to suspend the effect of a notice of appeal when a Rule 60(b) motion is filed no later than ten (10) days after judgment is entered. See United Nat. Ins. Co. v. R & D Latex Corp., 242 F.3d 1102, 1109 (9th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). 2 . We need not decide whether a Rule 60(b)
holding that section 1429 does not divest district court of jurisdiction when deportation proceedings are pending holding that where the issue of sanctions was not before the court of appeals when the appeal was filed the district court retained jurisdiction holding that notice of appeal was not effectively taken where appeal was filed simultaneously with timely motion for reconsideration because when timely motion for reconsideration is filed a notice of appeal filed prior to disposition of the motion to reconsider has no effect holding that notice of appeal did not divest the district court of jurisdiction at the time it was filed because a motion for reconsideration was pending holding that a motion for reconsideration in a criminal case must be filed within the 14day period for filing a notice of appeal