
    John NIBLO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UBS GLOBAL ASSET MANAGEMENT (AMERICAS), INC.; Dillon Read Capital Management LLC; and UBS Securities LLC, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 12-1650.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Dec. 21, 2012.
    As Amended Jan. 3, 2013.
    Jeffrey Lew Liddle (Marc Adam Sus-swein, Sherry Melissa Shore, on the brief), Liddle & Robinson, LLP, New York, NY, for appellant.
    Lloyd B. Chinn (Adam Michael Lupion, on the brief), Proskauer Rose LLP, New York, NY, for Appellees.
    Present: DENNIS JACOBS, Chief Judge, PIERRE N. LEVAL, and GUIDO CALABRESI, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be AFFIRMED.

John Niblo appeals from the judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Batts, J.), dismissing his Complaint. Niblo, a former employee of UBS Global Asset Management (Am.), Inc. (“UBS GAM”), alleges that he was unlawfully denied payment under a severance plan administered by UBS GAM in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”). He argues that the district court erred in dismissing his claim and refusing to let him amend his Complaint to cure deficiencies. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues presented for review.

1. “The notice of appeal must ... designate the judgment, order or part thereof being appealed.” Fed. R.App. P. 3(c)(1)(B). “While we may construe the rules liberally, we do not have the authority to waive the jurisdictional requirements of this rule.” New Phone Co., Inc. v. City of New York, 498 F.3d 127, 130 (2d Cir.2007) (citing Torres v. Oakland Scavenger Co., 487 U.S. 312, 317, 108 S.Ct. 2405, 101 L.Ed.2d 285 (1988)). “Our jurisdiction ... depends on whether the intent to appeal from that decision is clear on the face of, or can be inferred from, the notices of appeal.” Id. at 131. Niblo could not have intended to appeal the district court’s decision on the motion for reconsideration because the district court decided that motion after Niblo filed the Notice of Appeal. The arguments raised in the motion for reconsideration are wholly different than those raised in response to the motion to dismiss. We therefore lack appellate jurisdiction over arguments not raised in the opposition to the motion to dismiss.

2. The arguments Niblo made below in opposition to the motion to dismiss are waived because Niblo has not briefed those arguments. See Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 541 n. 1 (2d Cir.2005) (holding that issues not argued in the briefs are waived on appeal).

For the foregoing reasons, and finding no merit in Niblo’s other arguments, we hereby AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.  