United States v. Bratton

Full title: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. KENNETH ALLEN BRATTON, Defendant.

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Date published: Aug 20, 2014

Criminal Case No. 05-cr-00035-REB (D. Colo. Aug. 20, 2014)

Opinion

Criminal Case No. 05-cr-00035-REB

08-20-2014

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. KENNETH ALLEN BRATTON, Defendant.

Judge Robert E. Blackburn

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Blackburn, J.

The matter before me is defendant's Movant's Motion to Reconsider [#87]¹ filed May 5, 2014.² Defendant seeks reconsideration of my Order [#86] filed April 16, 2014, denying his motions [#80 & #84] to compel production of his presentence report. I deny the motion.

1 [#87]" is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a specific paper by the court's case management and electronic case filing system (CM/ECF). I use this convention throughout this order.

2 Motions to reconsider are proper in criminal cases even though the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure do not specifically provide for them. Id. at 1241-42; see United States v. Healy, 376 U.S. 75, 78, 84 S.Ct. 553, 11 L.Ed.2d 527 (1964). A district court should have the opportunity to correct alleged errors in its dispositions. See United States v. Dieter, 429 U.S. 6, 8, 97 S.Ct. 18, 50 L.Ed.2d 8 (1976). U.S. v. Christy, 739 F.3d 534, 539 (10^th Cir. 2014)
--------

The defendant is proceeding pro se. Thus, I construe his papers liberally. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200, 167 L.Ed.2d 1081 (2007); Andrews v. Heaton, 483 F.3d 1070, 1076 (10th Cir. 2007); Hall v. Belmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10^th Cir. 1991) (citing Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972)).

A motion to reconsider may be granted when the court has misapprehended the facts, a party's position, or the law. Servants of Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir.2000). Specific grounds include: "(1) an intervening change in the controlling law, (2) new evidence previously unavailable, and (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice." Id. See also U.S. v. Christy, 739 F.3d 534, 539 (10^th Cir. 2014) (accord). Here the defendant has not circumstantiated any recognized ground for reconsideration. Thus, the motion should be denied.

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the Movant's Motion to Reconsider [#87] filed May 5, 2014, is DENIED.

Dated August 20, 2014, at Denver, Colorado.

BY THE COURT:

/s/_________

Robert E. Blackburn

United States District Judge