filing a notice of appeal was “set forth in a statute.” Id. at 2364-65 (noting “the jurisdictional distinction between court-promulgated rules and limits enacted by Congress”); see 28 U.S.C. § 2107(a). Unlike the rule at issue in Bowles, Rule 59(e) is a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure promulgated by the Supreme Court under the Rules Enabling Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2071-2072. Moreover, no principled distinction exists between the rules at issue in Kontrick and Eberhart and the structure created by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 6(b) and 59(e). Since these rules are indistinguishable from those in Kontrick and Eberhart, we conclude that they are claim-processing rules that provided NEF with a forfeitable affirmative defense. See In re Onecast Media, Inc., 439 F.3d 558, 562 (9th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>). NEF does not contest that it “did not raise
recognizing rule holding that rule 59e applies to a motion to reconsider holding that rule 33 of the federal rules of criminal procedure is an inflexible claimprocessing rule that may be waived if not raised holding that kontrick and eberhart require the conclusion that rule 59e is a claimprocessing rule holding that an argument raised for the first time in a rule 59e motion is waived on appeal