Before: Walker and Menashi, C.JJ., and Choudhury, D.J.* On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York Plaintiff-Appellant Joel J. Malek appeals from the entry of a judgment in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Gujarati, J.) dismissing his complaint and denying leave to amend. Defendants-Appellees move to dismiss the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction, arguing that Malek failed to timely file a notice of appeal. More specifically, Defendants-Appellees argue that Malek’s service of a motion for reconsideration upon them did not constitute the filing of the motion in the district court and therefore did not toll the thirty-day deadline to file a notice of appeal of the district court’s dismissal order or judgment under Rule 4(a)(4)(A) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. We reiterate our holding in Weitzner v. Cynosure, Inc., 802 F.3d 307 (2d Cir. 2015), that Appellate Rule 4(a)(4)(A) requires that a post-judgment motion be timely filed — not merely timely served — under the timeline set by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. We further conclude that under Nutraceutical Corp. v. Lambert, 586 U.S. 188 (2019), Appellate Rule 4(a)(4)(A) is a mandatory claim-processing rule subject to waiver and forfeiture but not subject to equitable tolling or harmless error analysis. In so concluding, we recognize that Nutraceutical abrogated the contrary presumption in Weitzner that mandatory claim-processing rules are subject to equitable exceptions. Properly analyzed, Malek’s notice of appeal was untimely. Accordingly, we DISMISS the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction. NUSRAT CHOUDHURY, D.J. Plaintiff-Appellant Joel J. Malek appeals from the entry of judgment in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Gujarati, J.) dismissing his complaint and denying leave to amend. Defendant-Appellee AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company (“Equitable”) and Defendant-Appellee Leonard Feigenbaum (with Equitable, “Defendants”) move to dismiss the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction, arguing that Malek failed to timely file a notice of appeal. More specifically, Defendants argue that Malek’s service of a motion for reconsideration upon them did not constitute the filing of the motion in the district court and therefore did not toll the thirty-day deadline to file a notice of appeal of the district court’s dismissal order or judgment under Rule 4(a)(4)(A) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. In opposition, Malek argues that service of the motion for reconsideration on Defendants tolled the deadline for filing a notice of appeal because such service occurred within the twenty-eight-day deadline for filing a motion for reconsideration under Rules 59 and 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. We reiterate our prior holding in Weitzner v. Cynosure, Inc., 802 F.3d 307 (2d Cir. 2015), that Appellate Rule 4(a)(4)(A) requires that a post-judgment motion be timely filed — not merely timely served — under the timeline set by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. We further conclude that under Nutraceutical Corp. v. Lambert, 586 U.S. 188 (2019), Appellate Rule 4(a)(4)(A) is a mandatory claim-processing rule subject to waiver and forfeiture but not subject to equitable tolling or harmless error analysis. In so concluding, we recognize that Nutraceutical abrogated the contrary presumption in Weitzner that mandatory claim-processing rules were subject to equitable exception. Properly analyzed, Malek’s notice of appeal, filed more than five weeks after the district court’s order of dismissal and judgment, was untimely. Accordingly, we DISMISS the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction. BACKGROUND On October 9, 2020, Malek filed the complaint in the action below, alleging that Defendants engineered and implemented a “deceptive marketing conspiracy” to trick him and a nationwide class of other Equitable life insurance consumers into replacing their existing life insurance policies with Equitable’s more expensive, less valuable, and riskier policies. The complaint alleges that Defendants accomplished this scheme — to which Malek refers as “twisting” — through marketing materials that “deceptively ‘compare’ the existing insurance with the replacement insurance and offer incomplete disclosure of the benefits of maintaining existing insurance.” Joint App’x at 17. The complaint alleges violations of New York common and statutory law, as well as violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. §1961 et seq. The parties briefed a motion to dismiss. Following oral argument on the motion, the district court issued a March 29, 2023 order dismissing the complaint and denying leave to amend. The district court found that all of Malek’s New York claims were time-barred and that Malek failed to plead the existence of a RICO “enterprise.” The clerk entered judgment on March 31, 2023. On April 14, 2023, sixteen days after the March 29, 2023 order dismissing the complaint, Malek served Defendants with a motion for reconsideration of that order under the District Court’s Local Rule 6.3. Malek also filed a cover letter on the docket indicating service of the motion. Defendants served Malek with their responses to the motion on April 28, 2023. Malek replied and filed the fully-briefed motion for reconsideration on the docket on May 5, 2023 — thirty-seven days after the March 29, 2023 order dismissing the case and thirty-five days after the March 31, 2023 entry of judgment dismissing the case. Malek filed the motion for reconsideration once it became fully briefed after consulting Judge Gujarati’s Individual Practice Rule III.B, which “requests” “ [a]s a courtesy to the Court” “that the parties refrain from filing motion papers until the motion has been fully briefed, unless doing so might cause a party to miss an applicable deadline.” Add. to Equitable’s Br. at 8 (emphasis in original); Malek’s Br. at 13. This so-called “ bundling” rule also “remind[s]” parties that “ the Court of Appeals will not accept an argument that compliance with district court motion rules should excuse noncompliance with the time limits set forth in Fed. R. App. 4.”1 Add. to Equitable’s Br. at 8. On May 30, 2023, the district court found that Malek failed to demonstrate that reconsideration was warranted and denied the motion. On June 29, 2023, Malek filed the notice of appeal, stating that he appeals from the March 29, 2023 order that “dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 (ECF No. 47).” Joint App’x at 350. The notice further states that “Plaintiff timely moved to reconsider the March 29 Order, but the Court denied that motion in its Order of May 30, 2023….” Joint App’x at 350. On July 14, 2023, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss this appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction, arguing that Malek failed to file a timely notice of appeal under Appellate Rule 4(a)(1)(A). More specifically, Defendants argue that because Malek did not timely file his motion for reconsideration, that motion did not toll the thirty-day deadline to file his notice of appeal under Appellate Rule 4(a)(4)(A).2 Malek argues in opposition that he served the motion for reconsideration on Defendants within the timeframe required by Civil Rules 59 and 60, and the Local and Individual Rules of the District Court, and that service satisfied the requirements of Appellate Rule 4(a)(4)(A), thus tolling the thirty-day deadline for filing a notice of appeal under Appellate Rule 4(a)(1)(A). On October 10, 2023, a motions panel of this Court referred Defendants’ motion to dismiss to this panel and identified the following three issues for the parties to brief in the appeal: (1) whether our decision in Weitzner, 802 F.3d 307 remains good law after both Nutraceutical, 586 U.S. 188, and post-Weitzner changes to Appellate Rule 4(a)(4)(A); (2) whether the appeal from the judgment is timely under the now-applicable authorities; and (3) whether Malek’s notice of appeal can be liberally construed as appealing from the May 30, 2023 order denying reconsideration. DISCUSSION “In a civil case, except as provided in [Appellate] Rules 4(a)(1)(B), 4(a)(4) and 4(c), the notice of appeal…must be filed with the district clerk within 30 days after entry of the judgment or order appealed from.” Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). This rule is both “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 209 (2007) (internal quotation marks omitted). Consequently, the Court lacks appellate jurisdiction over an untimely appeal. See id. at 213. Our Court has held that Appellate Rule 4(a)(4)(A)(vi) requires timely filing — not merely timely service — of a post-judgment motion to toll the deadline for filing a notice of appeal, see Weitzner, 802 F.3d at 309, and that compliance with a district court’s bundling rule will not excuse noncompliance with federal appellate deadlines, even where the bundling rule is a mandatory requirement rather than a courtesy to the district court, see id. at 312-13. As all parties to this appeal recognize, Weitzner’s reasoning equally extends to the provision at issue here: Appellate Rule 4(a)(4)(A)(iv). We now consider whether Weitzner remains good law following a 2016 amendment to the text of Appellate Rule 4(a)(4)(A) and the Supreme Court’s decision in Nutraceutical, 586 U.S. 188 regarding mandatory claim-processing rules. For the reasons set forth below, we conclude that, after Nutraceutical, Weitzner remains good law, in most but not all respects. We reiterate Weitzner’s holding that Appellate Rule 4(a)(4)(A) requires filing — not merely service on an opposing party — of a post-judgment motion under the time limits set by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in order to toll the thirty-day deadline to file a notice of appeal. We also conclude, however, that notwithstanding our contrary presumption in Weitzner, Appellate Rule 4(a)(4)(A) is a mandatory claim-processing rule that is subject to forfeiture and waiver but not subject to equitable tolling or harmless error analysis. I. Weitzner’s Central Holdings Remain Good Law Following the 2016 Amendment to Rule 4(a)(4)(A) and Nutraceutical. In Weitzner, the appellee argued that this Court lacked appellate jurisdiction because the appellants filed the notice of appeal outside of the thirty-day limit of Appellate Rule 4(a)(1)(A). See Weitzner, 92 F.3d at 309. The appellants argued that they tolled the time to appeal under Appellate Rule 4(a)(4)(A)(vi) because they timely served a motion for reconsideration in compliance with the district court’s individual practice rule, which required parties to file motions only after they became fully briefed. See id. at 308-09. Our decision in Weitzner articulated three central holdings. First, based on the plain text of the rule and its drafting history, we held that Appellate Rule 4(a)(4)(A) required timely “filing” — not just timely “service” — of a motion in order to toll the time to appeal, even when timely service complied with the district judge’s bundling rule. See id. at 309-10. Second, we held that Appellate Rule 4(a)(4)(A)(vi) was “a claim-processing rule” “subject to equitable exception or waiver” rather than a jurisdictional rule to be strictly enforced, because the time limit set out in the rule was not established by statute. See id. at 310-12 (citing Bowles, 551 U.S. at 209). Third, we concluded that the appellants did not qualify for an equitable exception because they failed to ask the district court for leave to timely file the motion and departed from the court’s briefing schedule without permission. See id. at 312-13. All three of Weitzner’s central holdings remain good law following the 2016 amendment to Appellate Rule 4(a)(4)(A) and Nutraceutical. We clarify, however, that while Weitzner understandably presumed that all claims-processing rules are subject to both equitable exceptions and waiver, that presumption cannot be maintained after Nutraceutical. Rather, as Nutraceutical explained, “some claim-processing rules are ‘mandatory’ — that is, they are ‘unalterable’ if properly raised by an opposing party,” even though they are “subject to waiver and forfeiture.” 586 U.S. at 192 (quoting Manrique v. United States, 581 U.S. 116, 121 (2017)) (internal quotation marks omitted). We conclude that Appellate Rule 4(a)(4)(A)(iv) is “mandatory” in this sense. A. The 2016 Amendment to Appellate Rule 4(a)(4)(A) Requires Timely Filing of a Post-Judgment Motion to Toll the Thirty-Day Deadline to File a Notice of Appeal. At the time the Court decided Weitzner, Appellate Rule 4(a)(4)(A) read: “[i]f a party timely files in the district court any of the following motions under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the time to file an appeal runs for all parties from the entry of the order disposing of the last such remaining motion….” Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A) (2011). In 2016, an amendment to the Rule deleted the word “timely” and added a clause stating that the time to file an appeal is tolled if a party files a post-judgment motion under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “within the time allowed by those rules.” Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A). The operative Appellate Rule 4(a)(4)(A) thus provided: If a party files in the district court any of the following motions under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure — and does so within the time allowed by those rules — the time to file an appeal runs for all parties from the entry of the order disposing of the last such remaining motion. The “motions” referenced in the rule before and after the 2016 amendment include motions to alter or amend the judgment under Rule 59 and motions for relief under Rule 60, if filed within the time allowed for a Rule 59 motion. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A)(iv) — (vi). Malek argues that the 2016 amendment to Appellate Rule 4 “abrogated” Weitzner because it incorporated the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure’s delegation of control over the service and filing of motions to district courts. Malek’s Br. at 4, 21-22. Because he followed the district court’s local rules and the individual judge’s recommended bundling practice, Malek argues, the motion for reconsideration was timely filed for the purposes of Appellate Rule 4(a)(4)(A).3 We disagree. The 2016 amendment to Appellate Rule 4(a)(4)(A) addressed a circuit split about whether a post-judgment motion is “timely” for the purposes of tolling where the district court extended the post-judgment motion deadline and no party objected to the extension. See Fed. R. App. P. 4 Advisory Committee’s Note to 2016 Amendment.4 More specifically, the circuits disagreed as to whether a party’s failure to object in the district court to the timeliness of a post-judgment motion renders that motion timely for the purpose of Appellate Rule 4(a)(4)(A). Compare Nat’l Ecological Found. v. Alexander, 496 F.3d 466, 476 (6th Cir. 2007) (holding that “where a party forfeits an objection to the untimeliness of a Rule 59(e) motion [in the district court], that forfeiture makes the motion ‘timely’ for the purpose of [Appellate] Rule 4(a)(4)(A)(iv)”), with Lizardo v. United States, 619 F.3d 273, 276 (3d Cir. 2010) (“[T]he forfeiture of a timeliness objection in the district court does not render an untimely motion timely for purposes of [Appellate] Rule 4(a)(4)(A) in this Court.”). The Advisory Committee Note to the 2016 amendment makes clear that the untimeliness of a motion under Appellate Rule 4(a)(4)(A) “is not altered by…another party’s consent or failure to object to the motion’s lateness[] or the court’s disposition of the motion without explicit reliance on untimeliness.” Fed. R. App. P. 4 Advisory Committee Note to 2016 Amendment.5 The 2016 amendment clarifies that if a district court permits a party to file a post-judgment motion after the deadline allowed by the Civil Rules, that motion is still untimely for the purpose of Appellate Rule 4(a)(4)(A). This comports with our reasoning in Weitzner that compliance with a district judge’s individual rules will not immunize a motion from untimeliness for the purpose of Appellate Rule 4(a)(4)(A). The 2016 amendment to Appellate Rule 4(a)(4)(A) thus supports the Court’s holdings in Weitzner. First, the 2016 amendment did not disturb Weitzner’s holding that Appellate Rule 4(a)(4)(A) is a claim-processing rule because neither Appellate Rule 4(a)(4)(A) nor the twenty-eight-day deadline to file a motion to alter or amend a district court’s judgment set by Civil Rule 59(e) is established by statute. Weitzner, 802 F.3d at 310-11. And second, just as it did in Weitzner, the plain text of Appellate Rule 4(a)(4)(A) forecloses this appeal because it requires the “fil[ing]” — not merely service upon an adversary — of a motion for reconsideration within twenty-eight days after entry of judgment, as permitted by Rule 59(e). Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A). The filing requirement is deliberate. The earlier 1993 version of Appellate Rule 4(a)(4) required only service, but in 1995, the Rule was amended to require filing and later amendments preserved that choice. See Weitzner, 802 F.3d at 309 n.2.6 Accordingly, these holdings in Weitzner remain good law following the 2016 amendment to Appellate Rule 4(a)(4)(A). B. Appellate Rule 4(a)(4)(A) is a Mandatory Claim-Processing Rule. Weitzner’s second holding is confirmed by Nutraceutical, 586 U.S. 188: Appellate Rule 4(a)(4)(A)(vi) — and, by extension, Appellate Rule 4(a)(4)(A)(iv) — is a claim-processing rule. Nutraceutical clarifies, however, that Appellate Rule 4(a)(4)(A)(iv) is mandatory and, for that reason, not subject to equitable exceptions. In Nutraceutical, the Supreme Court observed that “[t]he mere fact that a time limit lacks jurisdictional force, however, does not render it malleable in every respect” and explained that “some claim-processing rules are mandatory — that is, they are unalterable if properly raised by an opposing party.” Id. at 192 (quoting Manrique, 581 U.S. at 121) (internal quotation marks omitted). Such mandatory claim-processing rules are subject to waiver and forfeiture but not to equitable tolling or harmless error analysis. Id. To determine whether a rule precludes equitable tolling, the Supreme Court looked to “whether the text of the rule leaves room for such flexibility.” Id. It further noted that “[w]here the pertinent rule or rules invoked show a clear intent to preclude tolling, courts are without authority to make exceptions merely because a litigant appears to have been diligent, reasonably mistaken, or otherwise deserving.” Id. at 192-93. The question in Nutraceutical was whether equitable tolling applied to the fourteen-day deadline under Civil Rule 23(f) for a party to seek permission from the court of appeals to immediately appeal a district court order granting or denying class certification. See id. at 189-90. The Supreme Court held that “the governing rules…make clear that [Rule 23(f)'s] deadline is not subject to equitable tolling.” Id. at 193. This is so both because the deadline set forth in the rule is “phrased in an unqualified manner,” and because the “Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure single out…Rule 23(f) for inflexible treatment.” Id. Specifically, Appellate Rule 26(b), “which generally authorizes extensions of time,” id. at 193, provides that a court of appeals “may not extend the time to file…a petition for permission to appeal,” Fed. R. App. P. 26(b)(1). The Supreme Court found that this showed “a clear intent to compel rigorous enforcement of [Civil] Rule 23(f)’s deadline, even where good cause for equitable tolling might otherwise exist.” Nutraceutical, 586 U.S. at 193. Applying Nutraceutical, Appellate Rule 4(a)(4)(A)(iv) is a mandatory claim-processing rule subject to waiver and forfeiture, but not subject to equitable tolling or harmless error analysis. First, the plain text of Appellate Rule 4(a)(4)(A), requiring a post-judgment motion to be filed “within the time allowed by [the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure],” Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A), is “phrased in an unqualified manner,” Nutraceutical, 586 U.S. at 193. Second, the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure single out Appellate Rule 4(a)(4)(A)(iv) for “inflexible treatment,” Nutraceutical, 586 U.S. at 193, because Appellate Rule 26(b) excludes “a notice of appeal (except as authorized in Rule 4)” from the general authorization for extensions of time, Fed. R. App. P. 26(b)(1).7 And Appellate Rule 4(a)(4)(A)(iv) only “authorize[s]” tolling when the appellant has filed a Civil Rule 59(e) motion within the deadline set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In concluding that Appellate Rule 4(a)(4)(A)(iv) is mandatory, we recognize Weitzner’s contrary presumption as abrogated. Weitzner presumed that if Appellate Rule 4(a)(4)(A)(vi) was not “jurisdictional,” it must be “a claim-processing rule that allows for equitable exceptions.” 802 F.3d at 312. That presumption was understandable, as the Supreme Court had not yet set out Nutraceutical’s framework for identifying “mandatory” rules. After Nutraceutical, however, Weitzner’s presumption no longer holds. If a claim-processing rule is “mandatory,” it is not susceptible to equitable exceptions. Appellate Rule 4(a)(4)(A)(iv) is mandatory in this sense.8 Cf. Smith v. Kenny, No. 22-1899, 2024 WL 725238, at *1 (2d Cir. 2024) (summary order) (treating Appellate Rules 4(a)(4)(A)(iv)-(vi) as “mandatory”); Demaree v. Pederson, 887 F.3d 870, 876 (9th Cir. 2018) (similar). II. The Appeal is Untimely. Malek’s appeal is untimely under the authorities discussed above, which establish the following standards. A party appealing a district court order or judgment must file a notice of appeal “with the district clerk within 30 days after entry of the judgment or order appealed from.” Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). The thirty-day deadline is a jurisdictional rule not subject to waiver, forfeiture, or equitable exception. Bowles, 551 U.S. at 213. Under Appellate Rule 4(a)(4)(A), a motion for reconsideration under Civil Rule 59(e) tolls the time to appeal if it is timely filed in the district court no later than twenty-eight days after entry of the judgment. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A)(iv); Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). Timely service alone will not suffice to toll the time to appeal. Weitzner, 802 F.3d at 312-13. Appellate Rule 4(a)(4)(A)(iv) is subject to waiver and forfeiture, but is not subject to equitable tolling or harmless-error analysis. See Nutraceutical, 586 U.S. at 192-94; Weitzner, 802 F.3d at 311. Malek’s appeal is not timely. On April 14, 2023, Malek served Defendants with his motion for reconsideration of the district court’s March 29, 2023 order dismissing the complaint; but he did not file the motion until May 5, 2023. The motion was thus filed more than twenty-eight days after the March 29, 2023 order and the March 31, 2023 entry of judgment. Cf. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e).9 As a result, the filing of the motion did not toll the deadline to appeal, which passed on either April 28, 2023 (thirty days after the March 29, 2023 order dismissing the complaint) or May 1, 2023 (thirty days after the March 31, 2023 entry of judgment).10 Malek argues that he is entitled to a “flexible” application of Appellate Rule 4(a)(4)(A) under Nutraceutical because he complied with the district court’s local rules and individual rules. See Malek’s Br. at 27-28. But this argument is unpersuasive. The local rules do not supersede the requirements of the federal rules. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 83(a)(1) (“A local rule must be consistent with…federal statutes and rules.”). Moreover, the district court’s individual rules explicitly warned that this Court would not accept such an argument to excuse an untimely notice of appeal.11 Accordingly, the appeal is untimely. III. The Notice of Appeal Cannot be Construed to Include the Order Denying Reconsideration. The final question to consider is whether Malek’s notice of appeal can be construed to include the district court’s order denying reconsideration. Under Appellate Rule 3(c)(1)(B), a notice of appeal “must…designate the judgment — or the appealable order — from which the appeal is taken.” This requirement is jurisdictional. Elliott v. City of Hartford, 823 F.3d 170, 172 (2d Cir. 2016) (per curiam). However, we construe notices of appeal liberally. See id. “In determining whether to permit a defective notice of appeal, this court considers the ‘notice of appeal so as to remain faithful to the intent of the appellant, fair to the appellee, and consistent with the jurisdictional authority of this court.’” Marrero Pichardo v. Ashcroft, 374 F.3d 46, 55 (2d Cir. 2004) (quoting Conway v. Village of Mount Kisco, 750 F.2d 205, 211 (2d Cir. 1984)), overruled on other grounds, Donnelly v. Controlled Application Rev. & Resol. Program Unit, 37 F.4th 44 (2d Cir. 2022). Malek’s notice of appeal cannot be construed to include the order denying reconsideration because it does not demonstrate an intent to appeal that order. The notice of appeal twice confirms that Malek intended to appeal the March 29, 2023 order dismissing the complaint. First, Malek checked the box to indicate that he sought to appeal an “order” and identified the date of the order as “March 29, 2023.” Joint App’x at 350. Second, Malek describes the order being appealed as one that “dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 (ECF No. 47)” and states that “Plaintiff hereby appeals the dismissal of the complaint with prejudice per Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A).” Joint App’x at 350. Third, the notice of appeal refers to the district court’s order denying the motion for reconsideration only for the purpose of tolling, explaining that “Plaintiff timely moved to reconsider the March 29 Order, but the Court denied that motion in its Order of May 30, 2023 (no document docketed).” Joint App’x at 350; see Persico v. Cassadei, No. 21-16-CV, 2021 WL 5500089, at *1-2 (2d Cir. Nov. 24, 2021) (finding no jurisdiction over order denying reconsideration where plaintiff’s notice of appeal, “filed by counsel, indicated that he sought to appeal only” from the district court’s order on summary judgment and “mention[ed]” the “ motion for reconsideration, but only to show that its filing tolled his time to appeal”). Accordingly, the notice of appeal does not evince Malek’s intent to appeal the order denying reconsideration. Moreover, Malek does not offer, nor does the record support, any equity concerns that might justify construing the notice of appeal to include the order denying reconsideration. Cf. Marrero Pichardo, 374 F.3d at 54-55 (permitting defective notice of appeal where appellant’s intent to appeal both the order denying his habeas petition and the subsequent order denying reconsideration was “clear,” the government was not “prejudiced or surprised by any defects in [the] notice of appeal,” and appellant’s “abysmal” counsel forfeited “the strongest and most obvious challenge” to appellant’s deportation).12 CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, we DISMISS the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction.
