U.S. v. Perez

Full title: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. JUAN PEREZ, #10123-424, Defendant

Court: United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division

Date published: Nov 26, 2001

No. 01 C 8330 (98 CR 399-3) (N.D. Ill. Nov. 26, 2001)

Opinion

No. 01 C 8330 (98 CR 399-3).

November 26, 2001

MEMORANDUM ORDER

MILTON I. SHADUR, Senior United States District Judge.

Following the issuance of this Court's November 2, 2001 memorandum opinion and order ("Opinion") denying the 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ("Section 2255") motion filed by Juan Perez ("Perez") to challenge the conviction on which he is now serving a 200-month sentence, Perez has filed a "Motion for Reconsideration from Final Judgment of a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Petition." For the reasons briefly stated here, that motion for reconsideration is also denied.

It could well suffice for such denial to say that Perez has really done nothing more than to repeat the same arguments that he made in his original Section 2255 motion and that this Court found wanting in the Opinion. Such disagreement with a court's ruling for the same reasons that were advanced the first time around is not a proper basis for seeking reconsideration. That is the teaching that was so well articulated inAbove the Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannan Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D. Va. 1983) and that has been confirmed many times over by courts everywhere, including this Court and (more importantly) our Court of Appeals.

But the current motion is wanting not just on that procedural ground, but also because it too is substantively mistaken on the merits for the very reasons that the Opinion set out. Just a few words should be added because Perez mistakenly believes that this Court has not paid sufficient heed to the multitude of cases that he has cited and quoted, both in his original motion and in the current one. What Perez fails to recognize is that it is not enough to quote past decisions accurately if those quotations (and the decisions themselves) simply do not apply to the case at hand, and that is the situation here. That is why there is no good purpose to be served by going through the mass of Perez' inapropos references to authorities.

As stated in the Opinion and as confirmed in this follow-up, Perez has not identified any constitutional defect in his conviction. Accordingly his motion for reconsideration is denied.