Thus, a refusal to reconsider may be overturned if the record makes manifest “that the court below committed a clear error of judgment in the conclusion it reached upon a weighing of the relevant factors.” Id. at 528-29. So it is here. The district court, apparently influenced both by the ambiguity contained in the motion for a temporary restraining order and by DOE’s self-serving argument, erroneously concluded that the abatement of the lease controversy accorded the Institute all the relief that it sought. The motion for reconsideration, however, made it clear that the court had misinterpreted an admittedly prolix, hard-to-read pro se pleading. Under those circumstances, the interests of justice required that the court reconsider and modify its earlier order. Cf. id. at 529 (<HOLDING>). III. CONCLUSION We need go no further. For
holding that a motion for reconsideration should not be based on evidence that was readily available at the time the motion was heaid 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 issue raised for first time in motion for reconsideration constituted waiver holding that it was not an abuse of discretion to deny a motion for reconsideration where the motion presented nothing new and merely rephrased allegations in the complaint holding that when feeseekers submission on motion for reconsideration corrected deficiencies in original fee application tjhere was insufficient reason to deny reconsideration merely because the movants had erred the first time around