the motion to intervene. This appeal followed. As to the attorneys’ fees, Appellants have not raised this issue in them opening brief and it is therefore waived. See State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Mhoon, 31 F.3d 979, 984 n. 7 (10th Cir.1994). Thus, the only remaining basis for intervention that Appellants assert on appeal is the notice issue. DISCUSSION I. Jurisdiction On December 16, 2003, the district court approved the settlement order and dismissed the suit. Two days later, Appellants filed a motion to intervene permissively and as of right. The district court denied that motion on February 24, 2004. Our appellate jurisdiction arises under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. See Coalition of Ariz./N.M. Counties for Stable Economic Growth v. Dep’t of the Interior, 100 F.3d 837, 839 (10th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). II. Standard of Review Our review of rulings
holding that when dismissal of an appeal will have the practical effect of denying later review of a district courts order appellate jurisdiction under  1291 may be appropriate holding that an order denying intervention is final and subject to immediate review if it prevents the applicant from becoming a party to the action and taking jurisdiction under  1291 holding that order denying motion to dismiss a bankruptcy petition is final under 28 usc  1291 holding that pursuant to the collateral order doctrine and 28 usc  1291 a state may appeal from a district court order denying it eleventh amendment immunity holding an order denying a nonpartys motion to intervene is appealable because it effectively concludes the proceedings for intervention and prevents the movant from becoming a party to the original action