Summary
In United States v. Law, No. 20-341, 2023 WL 5176297 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 11, 2023), the district court denied the defendant's motion for reconsideration of his motion to dismiss a Section 922(g) charge based on Range, because the defendant failed to raise a meaningful as-applied challenge to the statute and the predicate crime in Range was distinguishable from the defendant's predicate offense and other disqualifying circumstance of firearm possession while under a criminal justice sentence.
Summary of this case from United States v. HarperOpinion
CRIMINAL 20-341
08-11-2023
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. DEAMONTE LAW, Defendant.
ORDER
CATHY BISSOON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Defendant's Motion (Doc. 88) for reconsideration will be denied. Reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy, used sparingly given the interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources. U.S. v. Tablack, 2022 WL 37428, *2 (D. N.J. Jan. 4, 2022) (citation to quoted source omitted). Concerns regarding finality are only sharpened here, in light of Defendant's conviction by a jury.
In order to avail himself of such extraordinary relief, Defendant is required to show an intervening change in controlling law, the need to correct clear error or to prevent manifest injustice. Tablack at *2 (citation to binding and other authority omitted). To the extent that Defendant seeks reconsideration for any reason other than the decision in Range v. Att'y Gen., the Court rejects his position.
As for Range itself, the Court disagrees that the decision warrants reconsideration. Defendant previously failed to raise a meaningful “as applied” challenge. Assuming that he now properly may do so, the Range ruling, by its own terms, “is a narrow one.” Range, 69 F.4th 96, 106 (3d Cir. 2023). And the predicate crime addressed in Range is clearly and facially distinguishable. Compare id. at 98 (addressing the state crime of making a false statement to obtain food stamps, as applied to that defendant) with Gov't's Resp. in Opp'n (Doc. 91) (summarizing the prohibitions on Defendant's possession of a firearm, including possession while under a federal criminal justice sentence, and his prior convictions, which included possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime).
To the extent that Defendant's Motion may be viewed as presenting a facial challenge, his arguments are rejected for the same reasons stated by the government. See Doc. 91 at 15-16.
For these reasons, and for the others stated in the government's opposition, Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 88) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.