U.S. v. Wilkerson, 5:96-CR-167-H1. (2016)
Court: District Court, E.D. North Carolina
Number: infdco20160331h03
Visitors: 12
Filed: Mar. 30, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 30, 2016
Summary: ORDER MALCOLM J. HOWARD , Senior District Judge . This matter is before the court on defendant's motion to reconsider this court's order filed January 14, 2016, denying defendant's motion for sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3582 (c) (2). [D. E. #235 and #236]. This matter is ripe for adjudication. Courts have generally recognized three grounds for altering or amending judgments. See Hutchinson v. Staton , 994 F.2d 1076 , 1081 (4th Cir. 1993). Specifically, courts will alter or
Summary: ORDER MALCOLM J. HOWARD , Senior District Judge . This matter is before the court on defendant's motion to reconsider this court's order filed January 14, 2016, denying defendant's motion for sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3582 (c) (2). [D. E. #235 and #236]. This matter is ripe for adjudication. Courts have generally recognized three grounds for altering or amending judgments. See Hutchinson v. Staton , 994 F.2d 1076 , 1081 (4th Cir. 1993). Specifically, courts will alter or ..
More
ORDER
MALCOLM J. HOWARD, Senior District Judge.
This matter is before the court on defendant's motion to reconsider this court's order filed January 14, 2016, denying defendant's motion for sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (c) (2). [D. E. #235 and #236]. This matter is ripe for adjudication.
Courts have generally recognized three grounds for altering or amending judgments. See Hutchinson v. Staton, 994 F.2d 1076, 1081 (4th Cir. 1993). Specifically, courts will alter or amend "an earlier judgment: (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." Id.
The court has carefully reviewed defendant's motion for reconsideration, as well as the record in this matter, and finds no reason to alter or amend its judgment. Therefore, defendant's motion for reconsideration, [D.E. #235 and #236], is DENIED.
Source: Leagle
