WTT Project area as defined by the Corps. NEF contends that we need not consider the State’s argument because the State failed to raise this argument in its initial motion to clarify, instead raising it for the first time in its Rule 59(e) motion. “Rule 59(e) motions are ‘aimed at reconsideration, not initial consideration.’ ” FDIC v. World Univ., Inc., 978 F.2d 10, 16 (1st Cir.1992) (quoting Harley-Davidson Motor Co., Inc. v. Bank of New England, 897 F.2d 611, 616 (1st Cir.1990)). In World University, this Court held that the defendant’s argument, which it raised for the first time in a Rule 59(e) motion, was barred where there was no reason why the defendant could not have presented its argument prior to its motion to alter or amend the judgment. Id.; see also Engler, 146 F.3d at 374 (<HOLDING>). This rule, however, does not cover the facts
holding that the appellant waived an argument listed only in his summary of the argument holding that a party in a habeas case waives an argument by failing to raise it before the district court holding that the court did not have jurisdiction to consider an argument not presented to the board in a motion for reconsideration holding that an argument was barred where the movant could have but did not raise its argument before the district court ruled in the original motion holding the government waived its argument on appeal that the defendant did not have standing to challenge a search when it failed to raise the argument to the district court