Opinion
3:18-cr-89-MMH-MCR-2
12-20-2022
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. REGINALD BROWN
ORDER
MARCIA MORALES HOWARD UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Defendant Reginald Brown moves for reconsideration of the Court's Order denying his motions to suspend or postpone the preliminary order of forfeiture. (Doc. 548, Motion for Reconsideration; see also Doc. 543, Order.) The government has responded in opposition. (Doc. 552, Response.)
Brown also replied to the government's response (Doc. 553), but a party may not file a reply as a matter of right and he failed to request leave to file a reply, as required by Rule 3.01(d), Local Rules for the United States District Court, Middle District of Florida. Thus, Brown's reply is not properly before the Court.
“Although no statute or rule expressly provides for the filing of a motion for reconsideration in criminal cases, federal district courts necessarily have substantial discretion in ruling on motions for reconsideration.” United States v. Russell, 994 F.3d 1230, 1243 n.4 (11th Cir. 2021) (Branch, J., concurring) (quoting United States v. Razz, 387 F.Supp.3d 1397, 1402 (S.D. Fla. 2019)). The only grounds for granting a motion for reconsideration are newly-discovered evidence or manifest errors of law or fact, PBT Real Estate, LLC v. Town of Palm Beach, 988 F.3d 1274, 1287 (11th Cir. 2021) (citation omitted), or an intervening change in controlling law, Del. Valley Floral Grp., Inc. v. Shaw Rose Nets, LLC, 597 F.3d 1374, 1383 (11th Cir. 2010). “A motion for reconsideration cannot be used to relitigate old matters, raise argument or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment.” Wilchombe v. TeeVee Toons, Inc., 555 F.3d 949, 957 (11th Cir. 2009) (quotation marks and citation omitted).
The Court has reviewed Brown's Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 548) and the government's Response (Doc. 552). Upon review, the Court concludes that Brown fails to show grounds for relief. The Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 548) is therefore DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED