Opinion
19-CR-360 (KMW)
07-15-2024
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. WILLY SANCHEZ Defendant.
OPINION & ORDER
KIMBA M. WOOD, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:
Willy Sanchez, proceeding pro se, has filed a motion seeking reconsideration of the February 16, 2024 Order that denied his motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and his request for appointment of counsel.(Mot for Recons., ECF No. 128.) In that Order, the Court found that Sanchez was ineligible for a sentence reduction because (1) his original sentence of 111 months' imprisonment was below his reduced guidelines range of 121 to 151 months' imprisonment, and (2) he did not qualify for a sentence reduction pursuant to Amendment 817's expanded applicability of the safety valve provision of the First Step Act. (February 2024 Order at 1-2, ECF No. 127.)
The Court notes that Sanchez has filed a habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, see Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Sanchez v. Brown, No. 23-CV-238, ECF No. 1 (N.D. W. VA. 2023), and that he repeats arguments made in that petition in his present motion. Where motions for reconsideration seek to add a new ground for relief or attack the previous resolution of a claim on the merits, the motion qualifies as a successive habeas petition, thereby placing constraints on a district court's capacity to review the motion. See Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 532 (2005). Here, Sanchez's motion does not attack the integrity of the trial or the underlying conviction. Thus, it is evaluated as a motion for reconsideration and this Court reviews the decision only to the extent that it seeks reconsideration of the February 2024 Order. To the extent that Sanchez intends to file a motion related to his § 2241 petition in the Northern District of West Virginia, he should file any submissions with the appropriate caption, in that Court.
To the extent that Sanchez was seeking a modification on an imposed term of imprisonment pursuant to the First Step Act, this Court Ordered the Clerk of Court to open a new civil case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (February 2024 Order at 2.) A new civil action was opened. See Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Sanchez v. Warden at F.C.I. Hazelton, No. 24-CV-1251, ECF No. 1 (S.D.N.Y. 2024) (Swain, C.J.). If Sanchez intends to pursue relief pursuant to that motion, he should file any submissions using the appropriate caption.
Although Sanchez brings this motion pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(6), courts in this district evaluate motions for reconsideration in criminal cases pursuant to Criminal Local Rule 49.1(d). See e.g., Simon v. United States, No. 07-CR-474, 2021 WL 242360, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 25, 2021) (Ramos, J.). The standards governing civil and criminal motions for reconsideration are “largely the same” and reconsideration is an “extraordinary remedy to be employed sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of scarce judicial resources.” United States v. Lisi, No. 15-CR-457, 2020 WL 1331955, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 23, 2020) (Failla, J.) (quoting Parrish v. Sollecito, 253 F.Supp.2d 713, 715 (S.D.N.Y. 2003)). Reconsideration may be granted where the moving party meets the heavy burden of showing an intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent a manifest injustice. A motion for reconsideration is not an opportunity to relitigate old issues or present the case under new theories. Id. at *2.
Pursuant to Local Rule 49.1(d), a motion for reconsideration must be filed within 14 days of a court's decision on the original motion; however, courts retain discretion to excuse untimely filings. Lisi, 2020 WL 1331955, at *1. In light of Sanchez's pro se and incarcerated status, the Court exercises its discretion to excuse his untimely filing.
When movants proceed pro se, courts must construe their motions liberally. See Green v. United States, 260 F.3d 78, 83 (2d Cir. 2001). Construed liberally, Sanchez argues that his motion for reconsideration should be granted because: (1) the District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia determined that he was ineligible to earn time credits towards his sentence under the First Step Act, (2) the harsh conditions of confinement he has experienced at FCI-Hazelton warrant a more lenient sentence than the one the Court imposed, and (3) his record of rehabilitation warrants a more lenient sentence. (Mot. for Recons. at 5-14.) Sanchez's motion does not contend that the February 2024 Order erred in its conclusion that he was ineligible for a sentence reduction pursuant to the November 2023 amendments to the United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual. (See id.) The Court has considered Sanchez's arguments, and even under a liberal interpretation of his motion, his motion fails because he does not identify a change in law, new evidence, or a clear error that warrants reconsideration of the Court's February 2024 Order. Instead, Sanchez raises new arguments in his motion. However, new arguments may not be considered when a court decides a motion for reconsideration. For the reasons set forth above, Sanchez has failed to demonstrate that extraordinary circumstances exist to warrant relief pursuant to Criminal Local Rule 49.1(d). Thus, Sanchez's motion for reconsideration is denied.
The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to mail Sanchez a copy of this order.
SO ORDERED.