United States v. Reddy, 13-cr-20358. (2019)
Court: District Court, E.D. Michigan
Number: infdco20190717c28
Visitors: 10
Filed: Jul. 16, 2019
Latest Update: Jul. 16, 2019
Summary: ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (ECF #155) MATTHEW F. LEITMAN , District Judge . On July 15, 2019, this Court entered an order denying Defendant Subha Reddy's motion to modify her sentence. ( See ECF #154.) Reddy has now filed a motion for reconsideration. ( See ECF #155.) The motion is DENIED because the Court is not persuaded that its prior order was tainted by a "palpable defect" whose correction would "result in a different disposition of the case." L.R. 7.1(h)(3). Reddy has
Summary: ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (ECF #155) MATTHEW F. LEITMAN , District Judge . On July 15, 2019, this Court entered an order denying Defendant Subha Reddy's motion to modify her sentence. ( See ECF #154.) Reddy has now filed a motion for reconsideration. ( See ECF #155.) The motion is DENIED because the Court is not persuaded that its prior order was tainted by a "palpable defect" whose correction would "result in a different disposition of the case." L.R. 7.1(h)(3). Reddy has ..
More
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (ECF #155)
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN, District Judge.
On July 15, 2019, this Court entered an order denying Defendant Subha Reddy's motion to modify her sentence. (See ECF #154.) Reddy has now filed a motion for reconsideration. (See ECF #155.) The motion is DENIED because the Court is not persuaded that its prior order was tainted by a "palpable defect" whose correction would "result in a different disposition of the case." L.R. 7.1(h)(3). Reddy has still failed to persuade the Court that it has the authority to modify the sentence that it imposed. And Reddy's suggestion that she is entitled to relief based upon the delay in execution of her sentence misses the mark. The delay resulted, in no small part, from requests by Reddy for extensions of her report date so that she could obtain medical treatment. Having asked for and obtained substantial delay, Reddy cannot complain that the delay warrants relief from her sentence. For all of these reasons, Reddy's motion for reconsideration is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
