“prejudice the filing of a paid complaint making the same allegations.” Id. Den-ton nowhere suggested that a § 1915(e) dismissal of an appeal from judgment allows a pro se litigant to challenge the judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b). On that point, the law in this circuit is clear: “a district court does not have jurisdiction to alter an appellate ruling where the appellate court has already considered and rejected the basis for the movant’s Rule 60(b) motion.” DeWeerth v. Baldinger, 38 F.3d 1266, 1270 (2d Cir.1994) (citing Eutectic Corp. v. Metco, Inc., 597 F.2d 32 (2d Cir.1979) (per curiam)). Implicit in this court’s § 1915 dismissal of Searles’s appeal from the settlement judgment is a determination that he was bound by the settlement that he now challenges. See generally id. at 1271 (<HOLDING>). In such circumstances, a party may pursue a
holding that the law in this circuit is that errors of law are cognizable under rule 60b holding that while a district court lacks jurisdiction to deny a 60b motion while an appeal is pending it can certify that it will grant a 60b motion if the court of appeals remands the case for that purpose holding that rule 60b jurisdiction is lacking for appeals raising issues decided either explicitly or by necessary implication by this court holding that issues not supported by propositions of law authority or argument  are waived if either authority or argument is lacking not just if both are lacking holding that appeals raising issues of governmental or sovereign immunity affect a substantial right sufficient to immediate appellate review