In addressing these arguments, we first observe that Newman improperly raised them for the first time in his motion to reconsider, after the trial court had already denied his petition to modify his sentence. SeeHubbard v. Hubbard , 690 N.E.2d 1219, 1221 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998) (concluding that a motion to reconsider filed after the rendering of final judgment is to be treated as a motion to correct error); Sanders Kennels, Inc. v. Lane , 153 N.E.3d 262, 269 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020) ("[I]t is well-settled that [a] party may not raise an issue for the first time in a motion to correct error[.]") (quotation omitted).

Walden, 571 U.S. at 285 (quoting Burger King, 471 U.S. at 479-80) (emphasis added)). Patil cites Sanders Kennels, Inc. v. Lane, 153 N.E.3d 262 (Ind.Ct.App. 2020), in arguing that, “by reaching out to Patil, a content provider located in Indiana, and establishing an indefinite business relationship with Patil and FurorMedia in Indiana, 10PM Curfew purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting business in Indiana.”