ORDER

SUSAN C. BUCKLEW, District Judge.

This cause comes before the Court on Ford's Motions for Reconsideration (Dkts. 461, 462) of the Court's Order (Dkt. 460) denying his Rule 60(d)(3) Motion to Set Aside Judgment for Fraud on the Court. The Court notes that the two motions for reconsideration are identical to each other except that Document 461 also includes an additional three pages of argument. The Court has considered both motions and had determined that they should be denied.

"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." Bankers Life Ins. Co. v. Credit Suisse First Boston Corp., No. 8:07CV00690-T-17MSS, 2008 WL 4372847, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 24, 2008) (citation omitted). 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. Id. (citing Region 8 Forest Serv. Timber Purchases Council v. Alcock, 993 F.2d 800, 806 (11th Cir. 1993)). "When issues have been carefully considered and decisions rendered, the only reason which should commend reconsideration of that decision is a change in the factual or legal underpinning upon which the decision was based." Id. (quoting Taylor Woodrow Constr. Corp. v. Sarasota/Manatee Airport Auth., 814 F.Supp. 1072, 1072-73 (M.D. Fla. 1993)).

Here, Defendant reargues the grounds of his previously denied Rule 60(d)(3) motion. There has been no factual or legal change in the basis upon which the Rule 60(d)(3) motion was denied. Thus, the motions for reconsideration present no reason for the Court to reconsider its denial of the Rule 60(d)(3). Defendant's motions for reconsideration (Dkts. 461, 462) are hereby DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED.