ORDER

JAMES A. TEILBORG, District Judge.

On April 8, 2019, this Court entered an Order and Judgment denying and dismissing the Petition in this case. (Docs. 36 and 37). On May 3, 2019, Petitioner filed a Motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). (Doc. 38).

In his Motion, Petitioner basically makes two arguments: 1) he is subject to the rule of lenity; and 2) he seeks an evidentiary hearing. Id. Regarding the evidentiary hearing, for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 31 at 5), the Court continues to conclude that an evidentiary hearing is not necessary in this case.

Regarding the rule of lenity, Petitioner did not raise this theory of relief previously; therefore, it is waived. See Kona Enterprises, Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000) ("A Rule 59(e) motion may not be used to raise arguments or present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been raised earlier in the litigation."). Moreover, the fact that Petitioner's factual basis for his plea agreement supports multiple theories of committing an offense does not entitle Petitioner to relief under the rule of lenity. Specifically, "[t]he rule of lenity provides that `ambiguity concerning the ambit of criminal statutes should be resolved in the favor of lenity.'" United States v. LeCoe, 936 F.2d 398, 402 (9th Cir. 1991) (citation omitted). Here, there is no ambiguity in the statute; thus, the rule of lenity does not provide a basis for petitioner to seek relief.

Based on the foregoing,

IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment (Doc. 38) is denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that to the extent a ruling on a certificate of appealability is required,1 a certificate of appealability is denied.