Several months later, however, Desktop filed a motion in the district court to vacate the dismissal and rescind the settlement agreement due to Digital’s material misrepresentations during settlement negotiations. Id. The district court granted Desktop’s motion, and Digital appealed to the Tenth Circuit. Id. “[T]he Tenth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding that the District Court order was not appealable under § 1291, because it neither end[ed] the litigation on the merits nor [fell] within the long-recognized collateral order exception to the final judgment requirement.” Id. (quoting Desktop Direct, Inc. v. Digital Equip. Corp., 993 F.2d 755, 757 (10th Cir.1993)) (internal quotation marks omitted). The Supreme Court affirmed .Ct. 2034, 52 L.Ed.2d 651 (1977) (<HOLDING>). The Court reasoned that a party’s
holding that this courts review of board decisions is limited to final orders or final decisions recognizing that orders denying motions to reopen are treated as final orders of removal holding that court of appeals statutory jurisdiction over final orders of removal extends to reinstatement orders holding that remand orders are also appealable orders under 28 usc  1291 holding that pretrial orders rejecting claims of former jeopardy  constitute final decisions and thus satisfy the jurisdictional prerequisites of   1291