With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Cir.2002); In re Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d 245, 251 (3d Cir.1997) vening change in the law has rendered the conduct for which McAdory was convicted non-criminal, he cannot proceed under the approach recognized in Dorsainvil. See id. at 252. Further, McAdory’s inability to satisfy the gatekeeping requirements of § 2255 does not render the remedy inadequate or ineffective. Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d at 251. Accordingly, the District Court properly dismissed the § 2241 petition. Finally, we conclude that the District Court properly denied McAdory’s motion to alter or amend the judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e). To the extent that McAdo-ry sought to simply reargue claims previously raised, the District Court properly denied the Rule 59(e) motion. See Lazaridis v. Wehmer, 591 F.3d 666, 669 (3d Cir.2010) (<HOLDING>). McAdory also argued that the Supreme Court’s

A: holding that reconsideration pursuant to rule 59 cannot be premised on the same arguments presented in the complaint and motions
B: recognizing that both final and nonfinal orders may be the subject of motions for reconsideration
C: holding that complaint on appeal must be the same as that presented in the trial court
D: 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
A.