ORDER
ELIZABETH A. KOVACHEVICH, District Judge.
This cause is before the Court on:
Dkt. 176 Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment/Order Under Rule 59(e)
Defendant Milton Cossio, pro se, seeks reconsideration of the Court's Order denying Defendant Cossio's Motion to Compel the United States to File a Rule 35 Motion Reflecting Defendant's Substantial Assistance (Dkt. 173).
I. Standard of Review
The decision to grant a motion for reconsideration is within the sound discretion of the trial court and will only be granted to correct an abuse of discretion. Region 8 Forest Serv. Timber Purchases Council v. Alcock, 993 F.2d 800, 806 (11th Cir. 1993). There are three bases for reconsidering an order: "(1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) availability of new evidence; and (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. Sussman v. Salem, Saxon & Nielsen, P.A., 153 F.R.D. 689, 694 (M.D. Fla. 1994). See also Lamar Adver. of Mobile, Inc. v. City of Lakeland, 189 F.R.D. 480, 489 (M.D. Fla. 1999).
Furthermore, a motion for reconsideration does not provide an opportunity to simply reargue, or argue for the first time, an issue the Court has once determined. Court opinions are "not intended as mere first drafts, subject to revision and reconsideration at a litigant's pleasure." Quaker Alloy Casting Co. v. Gulfco Indus., Inc., 123 F.R.D. 282, 288 (N.D. Ill. 1988). The reconsideration of a previous order is an "extraordinary remedy" and "must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior decision." Ludwig v. Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. Co., 2005 WL 1053691 (citing Lamar, 189 F.R.D. at 489 (M.D. Fla. 1999)).
II. Discussion
Defendant Cossio again asserts that Defendant Cossio has rendered substantial assistance. Defendant Cossio argues that Defendant has fulfilled Defendant's end of the bargain as outlined in the Plea Agreement, without breaching Defendant's promise to provide truthful testimony.
After consideration, the Court adopts and incorporates the Court's prior Order. (Exh. 1) (Dkt. 173). The Government has not filed a Rule 35 Motion, and Defendant Cossio has not asserted that the Government refuses to file a Rule 35 Motion due to an impermissible motivation. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that Defendant Milton Cossio's Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment/Order Under Rule 59(e) (Dkt. 176) is denied.
DONE and ORDERED.
ORDER
This cause is before the Court on:
Dkt. 172 Motion to Compel the United States To File a Rule 35 Motion Reflecting Defendant's Substantial Assistance
Defendant Milton Cossio, pro se, requests that the Court issue an order compelling the United States to file a Rule 35 motion reflecting Defendant Cossio's substantial assistance.
After Defendant Cossio entered into a Plea Agreement (Dkt. 68), Defendant Cossio was sentenced on February 25, 2011 on Count One of the Indictment to a term of 135 months of imprisonment, followed by a term of 60 months of supervised release (Dkts. 111, 117). At sentencing, the Government orally moved to dismiss Count Two of the Indictment, which the Court granted. (Dkts. 112, 113). Defendant Cossio orally moved for a variance to ten years imprisonment, which the Court denied. (Dkts. 114, 115).
Defendant Cossio's Plea Agreement provides in Section 9:
"In any case, the defendant understands that the determination as to whether "substantial assistance" has been provided or what type of motion related thereto will be filed, if any, rests solely with the United States Attorney for the Middle District of Florida; and the defendant agrees that defendant cannot and will not challenge that determination, whether by appeal, collateral attack, or otherwise."
(Dkt. 68, pp. 4-5).
Federal district courts have authority to review a prosecutor's refusal to file a substantial assistance motion to grant a remedy if they find that the refusal was based on an unconstitutional motive, like race or religion. A defendant who merely claims to have provided substantial assistance or who makes only generalized allegations of an improper motive is not entitled to a remedy or even an evidentiary hearing. Judicial review is appropriate only when there is an allegation and a substantial showing that the prosecution refused to file a substantial assistance motion because of a constitutionally impermissible motivation. See Wade v. United States, 504 U.S. 181 (1992); United States v. Nealy, 232 F.3d 825 (11th Cir. 2000).
Defendant Cossio does not allege or make any showing that the Government has refused to file a substantial assistance motion because of a constitutionally impermissible motivation.
After consideration, the Court denies Defendant Cossio's Motion to Compel the United States To File a Rule 35 Motion Reflecting Defendant's Substantial Assistance. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that Defendant Milton Cossio's Motion to Compel the United States To File a Rule 35 Motion Reflecting Defendant's Substantial Assistance (Dkt. 172) is denied. The Clerk of Court shall provide a copy of this Order to pro se Defendant Cossio by U.S. Mail.
DONE and ORDERED.
