Opinion
17-10060-01-EFM
06-06-2023
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. LONNIE WAYNE LOTSHAW, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ERIC F. MELGREN CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Lonnie Wayne Lotshaw's Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 90). He asks the Court to reconsider its decision denying his motion for compassionate release from prison. Because reconsideration is not warranted, the Court denies Defendant's motion.
In the past three months, Defendants has filed two motions for compassionate release. In both motions, he asserted that his serious health conditions constituted an extraordinary and compelling reason warranting early release. The Court denied both, finding that Defendant's health conditions were being appropriately monitored, and the factors under § 3553(a) did not support Defendant's release. Defendant is now before the Court asking the Court to reconsider its last decision denying his request.
The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure do not specifically provide for motions to reconsider, however, the Tenth Circuit allows them. The standards governing them are the same standards that govern civil motions for reconsideration. The Court can alter its judgment “when the court has misapprehended the facts, a party's position, or the law.” A motion for reconsider allows the Court to correct clear errors of law or fact or to review newly discovered evidence. It is not appropriate to simply raise arguments already made.
United States v. Christy, 739 F.3d 534, 539 (10th Cir. 2014).
Id.
Id. (citing Servants of Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000)).
Id.
Id.
In this case, Defendant does not identify or provide any valid reason for the Court to reconsider its prior decision. Defendant simply asserts, again, that his health conditions are not being appropriately monitored by prison officials and the § 3553(a) factors weigh in favor of release. Defendant fails to assert an appropriate reason for reconsideration of the Court's prior order. Accordingly, the Court denies it.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's Order Denying his Motion for Compassionate Release (Doc. 90) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.