Opinion
16-cr-20254
05-23-2023
United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Edward C. Galka, Defendant.
DAVID R. GRAND, MAG. JUDGE.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION [171]
JUDITH E. LEVY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Before the Court is Defendant Edward C. Galka's pro se motion for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) filed on April 27, 2023. (ECF No. 171.) Defendant separately filed a brief in support of his motion. (ECF No. 172.) In his motion, Defendant challenges the sentence imposed at the re-sentencing hearing held on April 19, 2023. He argues that he should have received credit at sentencing for his period of home detention under 18 U.S.C. § 3585. (See id. at PageID.1364-1365; ECF No. 172.) He also “request[s] that reconsideration be given in granting his motion for an appeal bond because it is likely that he will be successful on appeal.” (ECF No. 171, PageID.1366.)
The Court notes that Defendant's motion is docketed as a “motion for resentencing” and mentions “motion for resentencing” in the title. (See ECF No. 171.) However, because Defendant states that he “request[s] his motion for resentencing to [be] considered a motion for reconsideration of his sentence as allowed under FRCP Rule 59(e),” the Court views Defendant's motion as one brought under Rule 59(e).
“The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure do not explicitly authorize motions for reconsideration, but the Supreme Court has held that defendants may file them in criminal cases.” United States v. Jackson, No. 1:16-cr-20347, 2023 WL 36067, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 4, 2023) (citing United States v. Ibarra, 502 U.S. 1, 6-7 (1991) (per curiam); United States v. Mack, 831 Fed.Appx. 787, 787 (6th Cir. 2020)). “Motions for reconsideration in criminal cases are generally treated like motions for reconsideration in civil cases.” Id. (quoting United States v. Estrada, No. 14-cr-20425, 2022 WL 17682630, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 14, 2022)).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) “gives a district court the chance ‘to rectify its own mistakes in the period immediately following' its decision.” Banister v. Davis, 140 S.Ct. 1698, 1703 (2020) (quoting White v. N.H. Dep't of Emp. Sec., 455 U.S. 445, 450 (1982)). “Rule 59(e) allows for reconsideration; it does not permit parties to effectively reargue a case.” Howard v. United States, 533 F.3d 472, 475 (6th Cir. 2008). “Motions under Rule 59(e) must either clearly establish a manifest error of law or must present newly discovered evidence.” Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians v. Engler, 146 F.3d 367, 374 (6th Cir. 1998).
Defendant does not present new evidence or show that the Court made an error. First, the Court did not err because it lacks the authority to make a credit determination at sentencing. United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329, 335 (1992) (holding that “the district court cannot determine the amount of the credit at sentencing” and that the Bureau of Prisons must “make the [credit] determination as an administrative matter when imprisoning the defendant”); see also United States v. Crozier, 259 F.3d 503, 520 (6th Cir. 2001) (“[T]he power to grant credit for time served lies solely with the Attorney General and the Bureau of Prisons.”). Second, Defendant does not provide any explanation for why he thinks the Court made a mistake in denying his motion for an appeal bond. (See ECF No. 171, PageID.1366; ECF No. 172.) Accordingly, Defendant's motion for reconsideration is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.