Opinion
Case No. 1:02-CR-173-02.
August 11, 2006
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendant Jack P. Farris' Motion for Reconsideration (styled as a letter and drafted without the assistance of counsel) of the Court's July 17, 2006 decision to deny his Motion to Remit Restitution. To prevail on the instant Motion, Defendant must not only demonstrate that the Court's decision suffers from a palpable defect, but must also show that a different result is manifest. W.D. MICH. LCRR 47.3(a). "[M]otions for reconsideration that merely present the same issues ruled upon by the Court shall not be granted." Id.
Defendant essentially believes that the $2,300,597.99 ordered in restitution (joint and several with Defendant Rachel Shannon Sosebee) is unjust and unfair and should be reduced. The Court of Appeals does not share Defendant's perspective. United States v. Sosebee, 419 F.3d 451, 453 (6th Cir. 2005) ("we find no error in connection with the restitution order entered against Farris and affirm that order."). Furthermore, as was made clear in the Court's July 17, 2006 Opinion, the Court has no authority to release Defendant from his restitution obligation.
THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Jack P. Farris' Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. No. 100) is DENIED.