Filed: Mar. 23, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 23, 2015
Summary: ORDER MALCOLM J. HOWARD , Senior District Judge . This matter is before the court on petitioner's second motion for reconsideration [DE #52], dated March 27, 2014, in which petitioner moves the court to reconsider its judgment, entered July 10, 2000, dismissing his 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion. Petitioner also moves to supplement his motion to reconsider by filing on May 5, 2014. The court hereby GRANTS petitioner, s motion to supplement [DE #53] and considers his second motion to reconsider. C
Summary: ORDER MALCOLM J. HOWARD , Senior District Judge . This matter is before the court on petitioner's second motion for reconsideration [DE #52], dated March 27, 2014, in which petitioner moves the court to reconsider its judgment, entered July 10, 2000, dismissing his 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion. Petitioner also moves to supplement his motion to reconsider by filing on May 5, 2014. The court hereby GRANTS petitioner, s motion to supplement [DE #53] and considers his second motion to reconsider. Co..
More
ORDER
MALCOLM J. HOWARD, Senior District Judge.
This matter is before the court on petitioner's second motion for reconsideration [DE #52], dated March 27, 2014, in which petitioner moves the court to reconsider its judgment, entered July 10, 2000, dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. Petitioner also moves to supplement his motion to reconsider by filing on May 5, 2014. The court hereby GRANTS petitioner, s motion to supplement [DE #53] and considers his second motion to reconsider.
Courts have generally recognized three grounds for altering or amending judgments. See Hutchinson v. Staton, 994 F.2d 1076, 1081 (4th Cir. 1993). Specifically, courts will alter or amend "an earlier judgment: (1) to accommodate an intervening change in controlling law; (2) to account for new evidence not available at trial; or ( 3) to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice." Id.
The court has carefully reviewed petitioner's motion for reconsideration, as well as the record in this matter, and finds no reason to alter or amend its judgment. See Whiteside v. United States, 775 F.3d 180 (4th Cir. Dec. 19, 2014) (en banc), overruling Whiteside v. United States, 748 F.3d 541 (4th Cir. Apr. 8, 2014). Therefore, petitioner's motion to supplement [DE #53] is GRANTED, and his second motion to reconsider [DE #52] is DENIED.
