ORDER

SUSAN C. BUCKLEW, District Judge.

This cause comes before the Court on Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. 564) of the Court's Order (Dkt. 563) denying his Motion for Leave to Appeal in Forma Pauperis. The Court previously denied Pease's motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis regarding the Court's denial of his motion for reconsideration of the motion to compel specific performance of the plea agreement. The issue Pease sought to appeal was whether the Court erred in denying his motion for reconsideration. The Court found that the appeal had no substantive merit, was not made in good faith, and, thus, denied the motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Dkt. 563. Now Pease asks the Court to reconsider its September 28, 2015 order denying his request to proceed in forma pauperis and asserts that the appeal has not been made in bad faith. Dkt. 564.

"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)).

After consideration of the motion, the Court finds that Pease has not met the standard for reconsideration. His motion is DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED.