Filed: Sep. 07, 2017
Latest Update: Sep. 07, 2017
Summary: ORDER ELIZABETH A. KOVACHEVICH , District Judge . This cause is before the Court on: Dkt. 128 Construed Motion for Reconsideration Dkt. 130 Response Defendant Miguel Eugemio Asprilla Caceres, pro se , requests that the Court grant Defendant a time served sentence. The Government opposes Defendant Caceres' Construed Motion for Reconsideration. The Government argues that Defendant Caceres' reduced sentence of 87 months recognizes the nature and extent of Defendant's cooperation, and is r
Summary: ORDER ELIZABETH A. KOVACHEVICH , District Judge . This cause is before the Court on: Dkt. 128 Construed Motion for Reconsideration Dkt. 130 Response Defendant Miguel Eugemio Asprilla Caceres, pro se , requests that the Court grant Defendant a time served sentence. The Government opposes Defendant Caceres' Construed Motion for Reconsideration. The Government argues that Defendant Caceres' reduced sentence of 87 months recognizes the nature and extent of Defendant's cooperation, and is re..
More
ORDER
ELIZABETH A. KOVACHEVICH, District Judge.
This cause is before the Court on:
Dkt. 128 Construed Motion for Reconsideration
Dkt. 130 Response
Defendant Miguel Eugemio Asprilla Caceres, pro se, requests that the Court grant Defendant a time served sentence.
The Government opposes Defendant Caceres' Construed Motion for Reconsideration. The Government argues that Defendant Caceres' reduced sentence of 87 months recognizes the nature and extent of Defendant's cooperation, and is reasonable.
The Government previously filed a Motion to Reduce Sentence (Dkt. 104) as to Defendant Caceres, which the Court granted (Dkt. 124). In the Motion, the Government recommended a four-level departure, placing Defendant in the guideline range of 87 to 108 months imprisonment. The Court reduced Defendant's term of imprisonment to 87 months; no other changes were made to the original sentence. An Amended Judgment was entered (Dkt. 125).
There are three bases for reconsidering an order: "(1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) availability of new evidence; and (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. Sussman v. Salem, Saxon & Nielsen, P.A., 153 F.R.D. 689, 694 (M.D. Fla. 1994). See also Lamar Adver. of Mobile, Inc. v. City of Lakeland, 189 F.R.D. 480, 489 (M.D. Fla. 1999). The reconsideration of a previous order is an "extraordinary remedy" and "must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior decision." Ludwig v. Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. Co., 2005 WL 1053691 (citing Lamar, 189 F.R.D. at 489 (M.D. Fla. 1999)).
The Court notes that Defendant Caceres entered into a Plea Agreement which recognizes that the determination as to whether substantial assistance has been rendered and what type of motion will be filed rests solely with the United States Attorney for the Middle District of Florida (Dkt. 29, pp. 5-6).
After consideration, the Court denies Defendant Caceres' Construed Motion for Reconsideration. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that pro se Defendant Caceres' Construed Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. 128) is denied. The Clerk of Court shall provide a copy of this Order to pro se Defendant Caceres by U.S. Mail.
DONE and ORDERED.
