Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): and quotation marks omitted). See also Dees v. Wilson, 796 F.Supp. 474, 475 (D.Kan.1992) (“A motion to reconsider is appropriate if the court has obviously misapprehended a party’s position, the facts, or mistakenly has decided issues not presented for determination.”). In addition, “arguments raised for the first time in a motion for reconsidera issues. Plaintiffs remaining arguments are new arguments or arguments offering supporting facts for which plaintiff has had ample opportunity to argue on prior occasions. These issues are again not properly before the court as they are arguments raised for the first time in plaintiffs motion to reconsider. Thus, the court declines to decide the merits of these arguments. See Van Skiver v. United States, 952 F.2d 1241, 1243 (10th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). In sum, plaintiff has not presented any 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that reconsideration pursuant to rule 59 cannot be premised on the same arguments presented in the complaint and motions (B) holding that reconsideration should not be granted where the moving party seeks to introduce additional facts not in the record on the original motion or advances new arguments or issues that could have been raised on the original motion (C) holding that motions for reconsideration are not appropriate if the movant asks the court to hear new arguments or supporting facts that could have been presented originally (D) holding that the court did not have jurisdiction to consider an argument not presented to the board in a motion for reconsideration (E) holding that reconsideration may not be based on evidence and legal arguments that could have been presented at the time of the challenged decision
Output (English): holding that the court did not have jurisdiction to consider an argument not presented to the board in a motion for reconsideration