Opinion
Criminal Action No. 5:11-CR-133-JMH-1
02-12-2016
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. NARCISCO MUNGUIA PINEDA, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER
** ** ** ** **
This matter is before the Court on Defendant's "Motion for Modification or Reduction of Sentence Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) Guideline Amendment No. 782" [DE 214]. The Court considered Defendant's case on its own motion on January 27, 2015, and denied any reduction in the term of imprisonment on the grounds that "[t]he sentence previously imposed is within the amended guideline range and the Court remains convinced that it is sufficient, but not greater than necessary, in this instance." [DE 191]. The Court then denied Defendant's first motion for the same relief, as well as his request for appointment of counsel, using a virtual or electronic order on May 22, 2015 [DE 194, 199].
Defendant's current motion, therefore, asks this Court to reconsider its earlier decisions. The Court declines to do so. While the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure do not contemplate a motion for reconsideration. Even if the Court could consider the matter using the factors applicable upon a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), which permits the Court to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to consider the importance of newly discovered evidence in civil matters. United States v. Hart, Criminal Action No. 5:07-23-JMH, 2008 WL 251986, * 1 (Jan. 29, 2008) (citing Helton v. ACS Group, 964 F.Supp. 1175, 1182 (W.D.Ky. 1997)). The motion should not be used for the purpose of relitigating issues already presented before the Court or to "rehash" old arguments. Id. The Court will grant relief for said motion under the following circumstances: (1) an intervening change of controlling law; (2) where evidence not previously available has become available; or (3) when it is necessary to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice. Jd. None of these circumstances provide a basis for reconsideration in this matter.
A district court does not have the authority to entertain a motion for reconsideration of a defendant's sentence. United States v. Dotz, 455 F.3d 644, 648 (6th Cir. 2006); see 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). This includes a motion for reconsideration of a sentence imposed pursuant to Amendment 782. United States v. Campbell, Nos.15-5363/5640 (6th Cir. Feb. 10, 2016). --------
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED:
(1) That Defendant's "Motion for Modification or Reduction of Sentence Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) Guideline Amendment No. 782" [DE 214] is DENIED and
(2) That the Clerk shall forward a copy of this Court's January 27, 2015, Order entered upon its own motion [DE 191] to Defendant along with the present Order.
This is the 12th day of February, 2016.
Signed By:
Joseph M . Hood
Senior U.S. District Judge