ORDER

GLORIA M. NAVARRO, Chief District Judge.

Pending before the Court is Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 42). The Government filed a Response (ECF No. 43). For the reasons discussed below, the Court denies the Motion.

On January 29, 2015 Defendant Craig Joseph White filed a Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (ECF No. 32), which this Court denied (ECF No. 41). Shortly thereafter, Defendant filed the instant Motion for Reconsideration. (ECF No. 42).

A motion for reconsideration under Rule 59(e) "should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law." 389 Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999) (emphasis added) (citing School Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993)).

Here, the Court finds that Defendant does not present any unusual circumstances that would warrant reconsideration. Rather, Defendant's Motion merely relitigates the arguments raised in his prior Section 2255 Motion.

Although the Court denies Defendant's present Motion for Reconsideration, the Court will issue a Certificate of Appealability whether the following issues: (1) whether the indictment can be silent as to the means of interstate or foreign commerce; and (2) whether the indictment can be silent as to the specific sexual activity Defendant sought to have with the victim. However, the Court will not issue a COA as to the issue of whether the statue of conviction is ambiguous because it does not define "sexual activity" because the Court previously found that this issue was procedurally barred pursuant to Defendant's Plea Agreement.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 42) is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court grants a COA as to the following issues: