United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Charlotte Division
D. WHITNEY CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
MATTER is before the Court on Petitioner's
pro se Motion for Reconsideration Pursuant to
Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e), (Doc. No. 14). In it, Petitioner asks the
Court to reconsider its Order denying his Motion to Vacate
filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, (Doc. No. 12).
procedural history is necessary to place the instant Motion
for Reconsideration in context. A jury found Petitioner guilty in
the underlying criminal case of possession of a firearm by a
convicted felon and possession of a firearm in furtherance of
a drug trafficking crime, and the Court sentenced him to a
total of 240 months' imprisonment as an armed career
criminal. (3:10-cr-69, Doc. Nos. 25, 53, 80). The Fourth
Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, United States v.
Ingram, 597 Fed.Appx. 151 (4th Cir. 2015),
and the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari on June
8, 2015, Ingram v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2823
September 8, 2015, Petitioner filed a pro se
pleading in the criminal case that was recharacterized as a
§ 2255 Motion to Vacate following
Castro warnings. (Doc. No. 1). Petitioner filed a
timely Motion to Amend on October 9, 2015, raising additional
claims. (Doc. No. 3). He subsequently filed a number of
motions and supplements in which he added claims and
arguments including an illegal sentencing claim based on
Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015), and
Mathis v. United States, 136 S.Ct. 2243 (2016),
(Doc. Nos. 5-6). He subsequently withdrew several of his
motions and supplements. See (Doc. Nos. 9-10).
June 20, 2017, Petitioner filed a “Request for Summary
Judgment” in which he sought immediate release on his
Johnson/Mathis claim and asked the Court to
“ignore all other arguments and grounds raised in [his]
§ 2255.” (Doc. No. 11 at 2-3) (emphasis added).
Court granted Petitioner's request, addressed only his
Johnson/Mathis claim, and denied relief on
September 29, 2017. (Doc. No. 12).
filed the instant Motion for Reconsideration Pursuant to
Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) on October 20, 2017. (Doc. No. 14). He
argues that reconsideration should be granted based on a
clear error of law and to prevent a manifest injustice. He
contends that his waiver in the Request for Summary Judgment
only meant to withdraw his other sentencing claims,
and attempts to reinstate the 10 claims raised in his Motion
to Amend, (Doc. No. 3).
may file a Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend no later than
28 days after the entry of a judgment. Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e).
Such a motion may only be granted in three situations:
“(1) to accommodate an intervening change in
controlling law; (2) to account for new evidence not
available at trial; or (3) to correct a clear error of law or
prevent manifest injustice.” Mayfield v.Nat'l
Ass'n for Stock Car Auto Racing, Inc., 674 F.3d 369,
378 (4th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks
omitted). “Rule 59(e) motions may not be used to make
arguments that could have been made before the judgment was
entered.” Hill v. Braxton, 277 F.3d 701, 708
(4th Cir. 2002).
timely filed the instant Motion for Reconsideration; however,
he has failed to demonstrate any basis for relief. The Court
addressed only his Johnson/Mathis claim
based on his request that the Court “ignore all other
arguments and grounds raised in Ingram's 2255.”
(Doc. No. 11 at 2-3) (emphasis added). The fact that he
regrets his waiver now that his sentencing claim has been
denied does not constitute an error of law or manifest
has failed to show the existence of the limited circumstances
under which a Rule 59(e) motion may be granted.
IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that:
Motion for Reconsideration Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e),
(Doc. No. 14), is DENIED