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)

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