Opinion
3:06-cr-204-J-33MCR.
August 4, 2006
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court pursuant to Defendant Robert Brown's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #34) filed on July 31, 2006. For the reasons stated below, the motion is denied.
Brown and Hunter had been previously indicted on these charges. In the previous case, Brown and Hunter moved for dismissal with prejudice for speedy trial violations. At first, the government opposed the motion. Subsequently, the government supplemented its response, conceding to dismissal. However, the government requested that dismissal be without prejudice. In a supplemental memorandum in support of the motion to dismiss, Brown responded to the government's request for dismissal without prejudice. Brown argued that dismissal should be with prejudice.
On June 29, 2006, the Court entered an order dismissing the case without prejudice. The government re-indicted Brown and Hunter. That indictment gave rise to the instant action. The new indictment is identical to the previously returned indictment.
On July 14, 2006, after briefing, the Court entered an order adopting the motions, responses and orders in the previous case, 3:05-cr-105-J-33MCR. As such, the previous motions, responses and orders regarding dismissal were adopted. Consequently, Brown is rearguing an issue that has already been briefed and ruled on. Accordingly, the Court treats this motion as a motion for reconsideration.
A motion for reconsideration should be granted only if there "is a change in the factual or legal underpinning upon which the decision was based." Taylor Woodrow Constr. Corp. v. Sarasota/Manatee Airport Auth., 814 F. Supp. 1072, 1072-1073 (M.D. Fla. 1993) (citing Harlingen v. City of Dunedin, No. 90-1358-Civ-T-17(c), 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10136, at *2 (M.D. Fla. 1992)). No such change has occurred. Accordingly, Brown's motion to dismiss is denied.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
Defendant Robert Brown's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #34) is DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED.