Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): filed that statement on November 14, 2005. That claim is not at issue in the Reconsideration Motion. STANDARD OF REVIEW Plaintiffs seek relief pursuant to Rules 59(e) and/or 60(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and under Local Rule 60.1(c). Rule 59(e) provides that any motion to alter or amend a judgment shall be filed no later than 10 days after entry of the judgment. Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). Rule 60(b)(1) provides that the court may relieve a party from an order for reason of “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). The Ninth Circuit has recognized that Rule 60(b) may be used to reconsider legal issues and to reconsider the court’s own mistake or inadvertence. See Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. E.E.O.C., 691 F.2d 438, 441 (9th Cir.1982) (<HOLDING>); see also Kingvision Pay-Per-View Ltd. v. Lake 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the law in this circuit is that errors of law are cognizable under rule 60b (B) holding claim is not cognizable (C) holding that it is an abuse of discretion to make errors of law or clear errors of factual determination (D) holding claim is cognizable (E) holding that certificate is required to appeal denial of rule 60b motion challenging denial of habeas application and stating that eight circuit courts including eighth circuit are in accord on this issue
Output (English): holding that it is an abuse of discretion to make errors of law or clear errors of factual determination