Amerson v. USA

Filing 10

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. (See Full Order.) IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner Raymond Amerson's Motion for Reconsideration (Docket No. 8 ) is DENIED. Signed by District Judge Catherine D. Perry on 10/06/2017. (CBL)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION RAYMOND AMERSON, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 4:17-cv-1804-CDP MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the Court upon petitioner Raymond Amerson’s Motion for Reconsideration. The motion is meritless and will be denied. On September 20, 2017, I dismissed Amerson’s petition for writ of audita querela after determining that the writ was unavailable because a statute specifically addressed the particular issue at hand. I also determined that there was no gap in the system of post-conviction relief rendering the writ available, noting, inter alia, that Amerson’s attempt to gain relief was not hampered by the remedies provided by 18 U.S.C. § 3582, it was hampered because Amendment 790 was not listed in § 1B1.10(d). In the instant motion, Amerson complains that the Court failed to address the merits of one of his arguments; namely, that courts have the authority to give retroactive effect to clarifying amendments. He asks the Court to consider that argument and grant him the relief he sought in his petition. Motions such as the one at bar “serve the limited function of correcting manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e); see also United States v. Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer Dist., 440 F.3d 930, 933 (8th Cir. 2006) (quoting Innovative Home Health Care, Inc. v. P.T.-O.T. Associates of the Black Hills, 141 F.3d 1284, 1286 (8th Cir. 1998)). Such motions do not allow a party to re-litigate matters, or raise arguments or present evidence that could have been presented prior to the entry of judgment, unless good cause is shown for such failure. Holder v. United States, 721 F.3d 979, 986 (8th Cir. 2013); Innovative Home Health Care, 141 F.3d at 1286. Upon review of the instant motion, the Court concludes that it fails to point to any manifest errors of law or fact, or any newly discovered evidence. Instead, the motion can be said to merely revisit an old argument. Amerson is not entitled to relief. See id. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner Raymond Amerson’s Motion for Reconsideration (Docket No. 8) is DENIED. Dated this 6th day of October, 2017. CATHERINE D. PERRY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?