MEMORANDUM & ORDER

INDIRA TALWANI, District Judge.

Defendant Luis Alix moves this court to reconsider its denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion for a writ of habeas corpus. Alternatively, Alix requests that this court clarify that its order granting him a certificate of appealability ("COA") covers his "miscarriage of justice" argument or issue a COA as to that argument now.

This court construes Alix's motion as a motion for reconsideration under Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Rule 12, Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings (allowing application of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to § 2255 cases). The motion fails because Alix does not show that he is entitled to such relief. A party may file a motion for reconsideration in order to correct a clear error of law or fact, present newly discovered evidence, or because of an intervening change in the law. Hayes v. Douglas Dynamics, Inc., 8 F.3d 88, 90 n.3 (1st Cir. 1993). Such motions, however, do not allow a party to advance arguments that should have been previously presented or to re-argue issues that were already presented and decided.

In his motion for a COA, Alix sought certification of the issue of the "retroactive application of Alleyne." In that motion, Alix made two sub-arguments in favor of the retroactive application of Alleyne, one of which was his miscarriage of justice argument. This court granted the motion for a COA with respect to the Alleyne retroactivity issue. This court thus clarifies that its previous Order [#291] applies to both sub-arguments.

For the foregoing reasons, this court hereby orders that Alix's Motion to Reconsider [#293] is ALLOWED insofar as this court clarifies that the COA covers his miscarriage of justice argument and is otherwise DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.