denying 'the motion. This he may do, for such order of denial, after entry of judgment, amounts to a decision to let the judgment stand ... and since nothing further remains to be determined in the cause, the order of denial is a “final decision.... ” Id. at 291; James Wm. Moore, et al., Moore’s Federal Practice, ¶ 59.62[2](3d ed.1997) (same; citing Peterman). Similarly, in Abbs, Judge Posner observed: If the judgment was correct when rendered but afterward something happens that requires that the judgment be changed, the denial of a Rule 59(e) motion would be separately appealable from the judgment — the appellant’s only quarrel with the district court being over its failure to take account of the post-judgment event. 963 F.2d at 925 (dictum). See also Mazzo-la, 795 F.2d at 223-24 (<HOLDING>). Here, GenCorp filed a notice of appeal from
holding that the filing of a motion for reconsideration does not toll the period for seeking judicial review of the underlying order holding that the appellate court should have construed the notice of appeal from the denial of a motion to vacate the judgment as an attempt to appeal from the underlying judgment holding that appellate court had jurisdiction over claimants appeal from the denial of his motion for reconsideration separable from underlying judgment despite claimants failure to appeal from the underlying judgment because the reconsideration motion raised changes in the relevant medical criteria holding that appeal from denial of rule 60b motion raised for review only the district courts order of denial and not the underlying judgment itself holding that an appeal from a denial of a rule 59e motion should have been construed as seeking review of the underlying judgment