he did not do so. Nevertheless, on July 25, 2007, Plaintiff did timely file a motion to extend the time to file his notice of appeal. See Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(5)(A)®. Further, because that motion was entitled “Notice of Appeal and Request for Extension of Time to File Appeal,” it also served as a notice of appeal that ripened when the district court granted Plaintiffs request for an extension of time. See Hinton v. City of Elwood, 997 F.2d 774, 777-79 (10th Cir.1993); see also United States v. Smith, 182 F.3d 733, 735-36 (10th Cir.1999) (treating motion to file notice of appeal out of time as functional equivalent of notice of appeal). Plaintiffs notice of appeal was thus timely filed and sufficient to give this court jurisdiction to consider his appeal. Furthe 171-72 (10th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). One additional jurisdictional concern that we
holding district courts decision to deny a rule 60b motion is a separately appealable decision requiring a new notice of appeal holding that another courts decision is a proper subject of judicial notice holding that appeal from denial of rule 60b motion raised for review only the district courts order of denial and not the underlying judgment itself holding that district court correctly determined that it did not have jurisdiction to consider rule 60b motion after appellate decision because movant cited no material change of circumstances or new evidence 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