Filed: Apr. 09, 2014
Latest Update: Apr. 09, 2014
Summary: ORDER AND OPINION J MICHELLE CHILDS, District Judge. This matter is before the court on Christopher Brockman's ("Defendant") pro se motion for reconsideration of the court's April 10, 2012 order on Defendant's motion for a reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) (ECF No. 586). (ECF No. 618.) Defendant filed the instant motion on January 9, 2014, the same day on which Defendant also filed an appeal of this matter to the Fourth Circuit. ( See ECF Nos. 615, 618.) For the reaso
Summary: ORDER AND OPINION J MICHELLE CHILDS, District Judge. This matter is before the court on Christopher Brockman's ("Defendant") pro se motion for reconsideration of the court's April 10, 2012 order on Defendant's motion for a reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) (ECF No. 586). (ECF No. 618.) Defendant filed the instant motion on January 9, 2014, the same day on which Defendant also filed an appeal of this matter to the Fourth Circuit. ( See ECF Nos. 615, 618.) For the reason..
More
ORDER AND OPINION
J MICHELLE CHILDS, District Judge.
This matter is before the court on Christopher Brockman's ("Defendant") pro se motion for reconsideration of the court's April 10, 2012 order on Defendant's motion for a reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (ECF No. 586). (ECF No. 618.) Defendant filed the instant motion on January 9, 2014, the same day on which Defendant also filed an appeal of this matter to the Fourth Circuit. (See ECF Nos. 615, 618.) For the reasons set forth herein, the court DENIES Defendant's motion for reconsideration.
Defendant's Notice of Appeal
"[A] federal district court and a federal court of appeals should not attempt to assert jurisdiction over a case simultaneously." Griggs v. Provident Consumer Disc. Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982). Ordinarily the filing of a notice of appeal "confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district court of its control over those aspects of the cases involved in the appeal." Id. However, in this case, Defendant filed a notice of appeal for the court's order on his motion for a sentence reduction prior to or at the same time he filed a motion for reconsideration pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). (See ECF Nos. 615, 618.) In this scenario, Defendant's notice of appeal does not become effective until after the court rules on his motion for reconsideration. Fed. R. App. P. 4(B)(i).1 Hence, Defendant's notice of appeal does not divest the court of jurisdiction over the instant motion.
Timeliness of Defendant's Motion
A court may alter or amend a judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure if the movant shows either (1) an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) new evidence that was not available at trial; or (3) that there has been a clear error of law or a manifest injustice. Robinson v. Wix Filtration Corp., 599 F.3d 403, 407 (4th Cir. 2010). In order for the court to consider a motion for reconsideration, it must be filed within twenty-eight days of the court's entry of judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e).
The court entered judgment for Defendant's motion for a reduction of sentence on April 10, 2012. Accordingly, Defendant had until May 8, 2012 to file a motion for reconsideration. Defendant did not file his motion for reconsideration until January 9, 2014, well over a year after the deadline.2 Therefore, the court finds it is not authorized by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to consider Defendant's motion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(2) ("A court must not extend the time to act under [Rule 59(e).]").
CONCLUSION
Thus, the court DENIES Defendant's motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 618) because it was filed untimely.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
