Viertel v. USA

Filing 30

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The Motion for Mandatory Judicial Notice of Viertel Affidavit is denied. The Clerk is directed to close all pending motions. (Signed by Judge John G. Koeltl on 12/10/2013) (djc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
────────────────────────────────────
CHRISTIAN VIERTEL,
08 Civ. 7512 (JGK)
01 Cr. 0571 (JGK)

Petitioner,
- against –

MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
────────────────────────────────────
JOHN G. KOELTL, District Judge:
The Court has received Petitioner Viertel’s “Mandatory
Judicial Notice of Viertel Affidavit,”

certified on October 27,

2013, submitted on November 7, 2013, and received by the Pro Se
Office on November 19, 2013.
In a motion dated October 30, 2013, the petitioner
requested that this Court reconsider its October 4, 2013
Memorandum Opinion and Order denying the petitioner’s
application under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, for a
writ of error coram nobis.

In connection with that motion, the

petitioner submitted a “Mandatory Judicial Notice of Defendant’s
Affidavit,” certified on October 27, 2013.

In a Memorandum

Opinion and Order dated November 1, 2013, the Court concluded
that the Affidavit did not support reconsideration of the
petitioner’s application under the All Writs Act and denied the
petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.

1

The current “Viertel Affidavit” is nearly identical to the
Affidavit submitted to the Court in connection with the October
30, 2013 motion for reconsideration.

While the petitioner added

an attached invoice, there is no indication that the invoice was
submitted with the original petition for a writ of error coram
nobis, and it therefore cannot support a motion for
reconsideration of the Court’s denial of that petition.

See

Davidson v. Scully, 172 F. Supp. 2d 458, 463-64 (S.D.N.Y. 2001)
(confirming that a motion for reconsideration does not grant a
right to submit new evidence in support of the motion).
Moreover, there is no showing that the invoice would change the
denial of the coram nobis petition, nor is there any reason the
invoice could not have been submitted earlier in connection with
the petitioner’s numerous prior applications.

Thus, like the

earlier Affidavit, the “Viertel Affidavit” does not support
reconsideration of the denial of the petitioner’s motion under
the All Writs Act, nor does it alter the conclusion reached in
the Court’s November 1, 2013 denial of the petitioner’s motion
for reconsideration.

2

CONCLUSION
The “Motion for Mandatory Judicial Notice of Viertel
Affidavit” is denied.

The Clerk is directed to close all

pending motions.
SO ORDERED.
Dated:

New York, New York
December 10, 2013

_____________/s/____________
John G. Koeltl
United States District Judge

3