January 6, 2006, but was untimely if the clock started ticking on November 23, 2005. A properly filed Rule 59(e) motion tolls the period for filing a notice of appeal; Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(4)(A)(iv), a Rule 59(e) motion filed out of time, however, does not have the same effect. NEF argues that the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear this appeal. It reasons that, notwithstanding the district court’s motion granting the State an extension of time to file its Rule 59(e) motion, the motion was nevertheless untimely filed. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b) states that the district court “may not extend the time for taking any action under Rule[] ... [59(e) ] ..., except to the extent and under the conditions stated in [Rule 59(e) ].” See Rhoden v. Campbell, 153 F.3d 773, 774 (6th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). NEF argues that since the State’s Rule 59(e)
holding that rule 59e applies to a motion to reconsider holding that an argument raised for the first time in a rule 59e motion is waived on appeal holding that the district court cannot extend the time for filing a rule 59e motion by margin order recognizing that rule 59e permits a district court to reconsider and amend a previous order holding that the march of time began for the period in which to file a rule 59e motion on the date the court entered an order that was immediately appealable