Williams v. Bechtold

Filing 28

ORDER denying 27 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge J. Randal Hall on 2/19/15. (cmr)

-1

IN THE UNITED

FOR THE

STATES DISTRICT

COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
WAYCROSS DIVISION

WILLIAMS,

*

*

Petitioner,

*

v.

*

*

CV

514-007

*

:HTOLD, Warden,

*
*

Respondent.

*

0

Petitioner

filed the

R

D

instant

E

R

motion seeking reconsideration of

this Court's Order denying his "Motion to Reopen Under Newly Discovery
[sic]

Evident

notice

of

[sic]."

appeal

(Docs.

prior

22

to

&

23.)

the

Because

filing

Petitioner

of

his

filed a

motion

for

reconsideration, the Court must first determine if it has jurisdiction
to consider the motion.

Ordinarily, "the filing of a notice of appeal

is an event of jurisdictional significance — it confers jurisdiction
on the court of appeals and divests the district court of its control
over the aspects of
v.

Diveroli,

internal

729

the case involved in the appeal."

F.3d

quotation

1339,

marks

1341

(11th

omitted).

reconsideration filed after a notice of
for filing an appeal,
reconsider

its

2008 WL 2511778,

2013)

However,
appeal,

(alteration

"a

and

motion

for

but within the

time

reinvests a district court with jurisdiction to

order."

at *1

Cir.

United States

United

(M.D. Ga.

States

v.

King,

June 19, 2008)

No.

5:06-cr-79(HL),

(citing United States

v.

Greenwood,

timely

filed

974 F.2d 1449,

both

his

reconsideration under

thus

this

Court

is

1467-70

notice
Federal

of

appeal

Rule

reinvested

(5th Cir.

of

with

and

1992)).

Petitioner has

subsequent

Appellate

motion

for

4(a),

and

consider

the

Procedure

jurisdiction

to

motion.

Turning to the merits of Petitioner's request, he seeks to reopen
his

§ 2241 petition

(doc.

18).

(doc.

1),

Specifically,

available when he

which was dismissed on August 12,

Petitioner alleges

that

new authority not

filed his first habeas petition has come to

that warrants reopening his

case.

2014

light

Petitioner's motion to reopen was

ultimately denied as both untimely and offering "nothing to alter the
Judgment

entered

reconsideration,
reconsideration.

addressed by

in

this

case."

Petitioner
Indeed,

the Court's

fails

(Doc.

to

23.)

raise

With

any

his

motion

grounds

for

justifying

Petitioner raises the same issues that were

Order denying

Petitioner's motion to

reopen

and fails to present any new evidence that was unavailable at the time
of his motion to reopen.

Accordingly,

Petitioner's motion

(doc.

27)

is DENIED.

ORDER ENTERED at Augusta, Georgia, this

f /^<iay of February,

2015.

HONORABLE J.

RMJDAL HALLT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
DISTRICT

OF

GEORGIA