Chowdhry v. The People of New York

Filing 10

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER #105306. The Court has considered all of the arguments of the parties. To the extent not specifically addressed above, the remaining arguments are either moot or without merit. For the foregoing reasons, the petitioner's motion is denied. (Signed by Judge John G. Koeltl on 3/11/2015) (rjm) Modified on 3/11/2015 (ca).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
────────────────────────────────────
RIAZUL HAQ CHOWDHARY,
Petitioner,

14 Cv. 6078 (JGK)
11 Cr. 859 (JGK)

- against MEMORANDUM OPINION AND
ORDER

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
RESPONDENT.
────────────────────────────────────
JOHN G. KOELTL, District Judge:

On January 22, 2015, this Court issued a Memorandum Opinion
and Order denying the petitioner’s motion to vacate, alter, or
amend his guilty plea, sentence, and judgment of conviction
under 18 U.S.C. § 2255.

See Chowdhary v. United States, No. 11

CR. 859, 2015 WL 273728, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 22, 2015).

The

Court found that the petitioner had knowingly and voluntarily
pleaded guilty, for which he received a sentence primarily of
time served.

The Court held that the petitioner had waived his

right to seek collateral review under 18 U.S.C. § 2255, that his
petition was untimely, and that, in any event, his underlying
claim for ineffective assistance of counsel was without merit.
Therefore, the Court denied the motion.
The Court has received a letter from the petitioner
requesting further consideration of his case.

The letter

highlights several circumstances of the petitioner’s underlying
1

crime and guilty plea, among other things.

The Court will file

the letter under seal and construe the letter as a motion for
reconsideration.
“The decision to grant or deny a motion for reconsideration
rests within the sound discretion of the district court.”
Vincent v. Money Store, No. 03 Civ. 2876, 2011 WL 5977812, at *1
(S.D.N.Y. Nov. 29, 2011) (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted).

“Reconsideration of a previous order by the Court is

an extraordinary remedy to be employed sparingly....”

Anwar v.

Fairfield Greenwich Ltd., 800 F.Supp.2d 571, 572 (S.D.N.Y. 2011)
(internal citation and quotation marks omitted).

“The major

grounds justifying reconsideration are an intervening change of
controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need
to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.”

Virgin

Atlantic Airways, Ltd. v. Nat'l Mediation Bd., 956 F.2d 1245,
1255 (2d Cir. 1992) (internal citation and quotation marks
omitted); see also Assured Guar. Mun. Corp. v. RBS Sec. Inc.,
No. 13cv2019, 2014 WL 1855766, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. May 8, 2014).
The petitioner has failed to show that there were any
issues of fact or controlling law that the Court overlooked.
The petitioner’s letter reiterates some of the arguments made in
his original motion, and does not identify any basis for
reconsideration.
2

The petitioner has not shown there was any clear error to
correct or that there is any manifest justice to prevent in the
Court’s previous decision.

The petitioner’s motion is therefore

denied.

CONCLUSION
The Court has considered all of the arguments of the
parties.

To the extent not specifically addressed above, the

remaining arguments are either moot or without merit.

For the

foregoing reasons, the petitioner’s motion is denied.

SO ORDERED.
Dated:

New York, New York
March 11, 2015

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

3