Opinion
3:18-CR-00228-01
08-04-2021
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. ROBERT E ROBINSON (01)
KAYLA D. MCCLUSKY, MAG. JUDGE.
MEMORANDUM ORDER
TERRY A. DOUGHTY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
On April 5, 2021, Defendant Robert E. Robinson filed a Petition for Reduction of Sentence or for Compassionate Release [Doc. No. 68]. On April 27, 2021, the Government filed its response in opposition [Doc. No. 74]. On April 30, 2021, the Court issued a Memorandum Order denying Defendant's Petition [Doc. No. 76].
On May 17, 2021, Defendant filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File a Reply to the Government's Opposition [Doc. No. 77], which the Court granted [Doc. No. 78], allowing Defendant to file a response no later than May 31, 2021. On May 24, 2021, Defendant filed a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeal for the Fifth Circuit [Doc. No. 80]. On June 7, 2021, the Clerk received Defendant's Reply to the Government's Opposition [Doc. No. 83].
The Court construes Defendant's Reply to the Government's Opposition [Doc. No. 83] as a motion for reconsideration. The Court notes the case is on appeal; however, even if the Court had jurisdiction to consider Defendant's motion, the Court would deny it. While there is no motion for reconsideration per se, there is a motion to alter or amend judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). The Fifth Circuit has explained that a Rule 59(e) motion “calls into question the correctness of a judgment, ” but “is not the proper vehicle for rehashing evidence, legal theories, or arguments that could have been offered, ” or were offered, “before the entry of judgment.” Templet v. HydroChem, Inc., 367 F.3d 473, 478-79 (5thCir. 2004) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Defendant disagrees with the Court's determination in this case and provides more information as to his medical condition. His arguments, however, remain the same, and he has not shown that he would not be a danger to the community if released.
The Court has previously considered and rejected Defendant's arguments and finds no reason to alter or amend its Ruling. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Defendant's request for reconsideration [Doc. No. 83] is DENIED