Opinion
3:11-cr-007-MMH-JBT
12-20-2022
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. DAVID WESLEY ISAAC
ORDER
MARCIA MORALES HOWARD United States District Judge
Defendant David Wesley Isaac moves for reconsideration of the Court's Order denying his motion for early termination of supervised release. (Doc. 59, Amended Motion for Reconsideration; see also Doc. 57, Order.) The government responded in opposition. (Doc. 60, Response.)
“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 Isaac's Amended Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 59) and the government's Response (Doc. 60). Upon review, the Court concludes that Isaac fails to show newly discovered evidence that warrants a different outcome, a manifest error of law or fact, or an intervening change in controlling law. The Amended Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 59) is therefore DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED