U.S. v. Graves

Full title: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. GREGORY GRAVES, Defendant

Court: United States District Court, W.D. New York

Date published: May 16, 2007

01-CR-6051T (W.D.N.Y. May. 16, 2007)

Opinion

01-CR-6051T.

May 16, 2007

ORDER

MICHAEL TELESCA, Senior District Judge

By motion dated March 2, 2007, defendant Gregory Graves moves pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for reconsideration of this Court's July 26, 2006, Decision and Order denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides in relevant part that a court may relieve a party from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for any of the following reasons:

(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective application; or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.

Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b).

A motion for reconsideration pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is addressed to the "sound discretion of the district court and . . . [is] generally granted only upon the showing of exceptional circumstances." Mendell v. Gollust, 909 F.2d 724, 731 (2d Cir. 1990) (emphasis added),aff'd, 501 U.S. 115 (1991). "The standard for granting such a motion is strict, and reconsideration will generally be denied unless the moving party can point to controlling decisions or data that the court overlooked — matters, in other words, that might reasonably be expected to alter the conclusion reached by the court." Shrader v. CSX Transportation, Inc., 70 F.3d 255 (2d Cir. 1995).

I find that the defendant has failed to demonstrate the existence of exceptional circumstances warranting reconsideration, or controlling decisions or data that would alter the conclusions reached in my July 26, 2006 Decision and Order. Accordingly, I deny defendant's motion for reconsideration.

ALL OF THE ABOVE IS SO ORDERED.