Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): at Las Vegas Investors Group, Inc. v. Pac. Malibu Dev. Corp., 933 F.2d 724, 729 (9th Cir.1991). 4 . For ease of reference, all citations to page numbers of docketed items are to the page assigned by the court's case management and electronic case filing (CM/ECF) system. 5 . In so doing, this court is following well-settled Ninth Circuit precedent denominating Rule 59(e) motions to alter or amend a judgment as motions to reconsider. See, e.g., S.E.C. v. Platforms Wireless Int’l Corp., 617 F.3d 1072, 1100 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing United Nat'l Ins. Co. v. Spectrum Worldwide, Inc., 555 F.3d 772, 780 (9th Cir. 2009)) (enumerating the circumstances under which "[r]econsideration under Rule 59(e) is appropriate[]”); Kona Enterprises Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). 6 . Judgment was entered in this case on 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that rule 59e applies to a motion to reconsider (B) holding that a motion to reconsider a section 2255 ruling is available and that it is to be treated asa rule 59e motion if filed within 10 days of entry of the challenged order (C) holding that no provision authorizes a district court to reconsider its order on a  3582 motion (D) recognizing that rule 59e permits a district court to reconsider and amend a previous order (E) holding that the district court cannot extend the time for filing a rule 59e motion by margin order
Output (English): holding that no provision authorizes a district court to reconsider its order on a  3582 motion