Filed: May 12, 2014
Latest Update: May 12, 2014
Summary: ORDER JOHN J. O'SULLIVAN, Magistrate Judge. THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Government's Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's March 28, 2014 Order (DE# 181, 4/28/14). Having reviewed the motion and the Government's Classified Ex Parte, In Camera Under Seal Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Its Motion for Reconsideration and Response to Defendant Sheheryar Qazi's Motion to Declare FAA Unconstitutional (DE# 183-1, 4/30/14), it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Government's Mo
Summary: ORDER JOHN J. O'SULLIVAN, Magistrate Judge. THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Government's Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's March 28, 2014 Order (DE# 181, 4/28/14). Having reviewed the motion and the Government's Classified Ex Parte, In Camera Under Seal Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Its Motion for Reconsideration and Response to Defendant Sheheryar Qazi's Motion to Declare FAA Unconstitutional (DE# 183-1, 4/30/14), it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Government's Mot..
More
ORDER
JOHN J. O'SULLIVAN, Magistrate Judge.
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Government's Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's March 28, 2014 Order (DE# 181, 4/28/14). Having reviewed the motion and the Government's Classified Ex Parte, In Camera Under Seal Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Its Motion for Reconsideration and Response to Defendant Sheheryar Qazi's Motion to Declare FAA Unconstitutional (DE# 183-1, 4/30/14), it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Government's Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's March 28, 2014 Order (DE# 181, 4/28/14) is DENIED. Although the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure do not expressly authorize a motion for reconsideration in a criminal case, the Supreme Court and the Eleventh Circuit have acknowledged that district courts have substantial discretion to rule on motions for reconsideration. See United States v. Phillips, 597 F.3d 1190, 1199 (11th Cir. 2010) (citing United States v. Ibarra, 502 U.S. 1, 6-8 (1991)); United States v. Vicaria, 936 F.2d 1412, 1413-14 (11th Cir. 1992); United States v. Mason, 2008 WL 1882255, *1 (M.D. Fla. April 24, 2008)(citing United States v. Gupta, No. 98-6118-CR, 2002 WL 34216139 (S.D. Fla. October 18, 2002) (vacated on other grounds) (citing Groover v. Michelin N. Am., Inc., 90 F.Supp.2d 1236, 1256 (M.D. Ala. 2000)). "The appropriate grounds for granting reconsideration include: "`(1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence; and (3) the need to correct clear error or manifest injustice.'" Mason, 2008 WL 1882255, *1 (quoting Groover, 90 F. Supp. 2d at 1256) (other citation omitted)). Because the government's motion for reconsideration simply reargues its previous position without adding anything to satisfy one of the three grounds for reconsideration, the motion for reconsideration is denied. It is further
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the government's request for a new response deadline contained within it's motion for reconsideration is granted. By May 19, 2014, the government shall file its substantive response to the Defendant's Motion Requesting That this Court Declare the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 Unconstitutional (DE# 96, 5/28/13).
DONE AND ORDERED.
