Yeager v. USA

Filing 10

ORDER denying 9 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge Martin Reidinger on 8/12/13. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(nll)

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
CIVIL CASE NO. 1:12-cv-00021-MR
[CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1:09-cr-00099-MR-1]

RAYMOND YEAGER,

)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
vs.
)
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
)
Respondent.
)
____________________________)

ORDER

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Petitioner’s Motion for
Reconsideration [Doc. 9].
I.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Petitioner is serving a 151-month sentence after being convicted of

distribution and receipt of visual depictions of minors engaged in sexually
explicit conduct, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252(a)(2) and (b)(1). On
January 23, 2012, Petitioner filed a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct
sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, in which he raised three, primary
ineffective assistance of counsel claims: (1) that he was misadvised
regarding a polygraph examination; (2) that he prepared an allocution at
the direction of counsel that was not presented to the Court; and (3) that his

attorney failed to present evidence of “levels of sentence in other districts
that resulted in lower sentencing levels.” [Doc. 1]. On June 19, 2013, this
Court denied and dismissed Petitioner’s motion to vacate on the merits.
[Doc. 7].
On July 22, 2013, Petitioner filed the pending motion for
reconsideration, which is in the nature of a motion to alter or amend the
prior judgment of the Court under Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.
II.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
With regard to motions to alter or amend a judgment under Rule

59(e), the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has stated:
A district court has the discretion to grant a Rule
59(e) motion only in very narrow circumstances: “(1)
to accommodate an intervening change in
controlling law; (2) to account for new evidence not
available at trial; or (3) to correct a clear error of law
or to prevent manifest injustice.”
Hill v. Braxton, 277 F.3d 701, 708 (4th Cir. 2002) (quoting Collison v. Int’l
Chem. Workers Union, 34 F.3d 233, 236 (4th Cir. 1994)). Furthermore,
“Rule 59(e) motions may not be used to make arguments that could have
been made before the judgment was entered.”

Id.

Indeed, the

circumstances under which a Rule 59(e) motion may be granted are so
limited that “[c]ommentators observe ‘because of the narrow purposes for
2

which they are intended, Rule 59(e) motions typically are denied.’”
Woodrum v. Thomas Mem’l Hosp. Found., Inc., 186 F.R.D. 350, 351 (S.D.
W. Va. 1999) (quoting 11 Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay
Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2810.1 (2d ed. 1995)).
III.

DISCUSSION
Petitioner has not shown the existence of the limited circumstances

under which a Rule 59(e) motion may be granted. That is, Petitioner’s
motion does not present evidence that was unavailable when he filed his
motion to vacate, nor does his motion stem from an intervening change in
the applicable law. Furthermore, Petitioner has not shown that a clear error
of law has been made, or that failure to grant the motion would result in
manifest injustice to him. See Hill, 277 F.3d at 708. Rather, in his motion
for reconsideration, Petitioner merely reasserts or expounds further on
some of the allegations made in the original motion to vacate. Accordingly,
the Court will deny Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
IV.

CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes that Petitioner’s Motion

for Reconsideration should be denied.
The Court further finds that the Petitioner has not made a substantial
showing of a denial of a constitutional right. See generally 28 U.S.C. §
3

2253(c)(2); see also Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct.
1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003) (in order to satisfy § 2253(c), a “petitioner
must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s
assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong”) (citing Slack
v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542
(2000).

Petitioner has failed to demonstrate both that this Court’s

dispositive procedural rulings are debatable, and that his Motion to Vacate
states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack v.
McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000).
As a result, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. See
Rule 11(a), Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for the United
States District Courts, 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
ORDER
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for
Reconsideration [Doc. 9] is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court declines to issue a
certificate of appealability.

Signed: August 12, 2013

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4