Opinion
Case No. 05-CV-74166, Crim. No. 00-CR-80541.
December 27, 2005
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT (#318) AS ON RECONSIDERATION
Petitioner Yuk Rung Tsang's 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion challenging the evidence used to support a jury's guilty verdict on the charge that petitioner conspired to distribute more than 100 grams of heroin was denied on December 1, 2005. Petitioner asserts the court erred in failing to consider new evidence: an affidavit filed by a private investigator indicating that jurors disagreed, notwithstanding their guilty verdict, as to the nature of petitioner's drug transactions. As has been explained to petitioner by the Sixth Circuit in affirming the conviction and sentence, and by this court in denying petitioner's motions for for post-conviction and post-appeal relief, courts do not inquire into jurors' deliberations or the reasons for the verdicts they collectively reach. See United States v. Tsang, No. 02-1776, 96 Fed. Appx. 318, 2004 WL 874783 at **2 (6th Cir. 2004) (citingUnited States v. Powell, 469 U.S. 57, 68-69 (1984) and United States v. Meyers, 646 F.2d 1142, 1145 (6th Cir. 1981)). Petitioner has failed to demonstrate palpable error. See E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(g)(3) (governing motions for rehearing or reconsideration). Accordingly,
Petitioner's motion to alter or amend judgment is hereby DENIED as on reconsideration.
SO ORDERED.