amicus brief filed in Lee, DOJ asserts, inter alia, that the lawsuits with similar allegations filed against other schools should not trigger the public disclosure bar.” Relators did not explain how the arguments made in the amicus brief applied to the district court’s order, how that brief showed an intervening change in the law, or how those arguments or legal authorities showed that the district court erred. Ill We recognize that by looking to the substance of the motion and the relief requested, we place the burden “upon the party seeking to appeal the obligation to determine for itself whether a motion denominated as a[n FRCP] 59(e) motion does in fact fall within the parameters for which that rule is designed.” Fincher v. Keller Indus., Inc., 905 F.2d 691, 693 (3d Cir. 1990) (<HOLDING>). This result, however, is required by
holding that argument was not preserved where defendant did not file a pretrial motion to suppress and did not object or make a motion to exclude the evidence until his motion to dismiss at the close of all of the evidence 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 a motion filed as a rule 59e was not a motion to alter or amend the judgment and did not toll the time to file an appeal because the motion for costs was wholly collateral to thejudgment on the merits 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