Parker v. USA

Filing 8

ORDER denying 7 Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. Signed by District Judge Martin Reidinger on 12/03/2013. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(thh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
BRYSON CITY DIVISION
CIVIL CASE NO. 2:13-cv-00010-MR
[CRIMINAL CASE NO. 2:06-cr-00002-MR-1]
LEONARD O’BRIEN PARKER,

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

ORDER

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Petitioner’s Motion to
Reconsider [Doc. 7].
BACKGROUND
On February 21, 2007, Petitioner was found guilty after a jury trial of
kidnaping in the commission of a bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §
2113(e); possession of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii); and possession of a firearm by a
felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). [Criminal Case No. 2:06-cr00002, Doc. 88: Jury Verdict].
Judgment was entered on September 13, 2007, and Petitioner was
sentenced to a total of 552 months’ imprisonment.

[Id., Doc. 102:

Judgment]. Petitioner appealed and on July 28, 2008, the Fourth Circuit
Court of Appeals affirmed Petitioner’s conviction. The Fourth Circuit Court
of Appeals mandate issued on September 29, 2008. [Id.]. Petitioner filed a
petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, which petition was
denied on January 21, 2009. Parker v. United States, 555 U.S. 1147, 129
S.Ct. 1022, 173 L.Ed.2d 310 (2009).
On February 7, 2013, Petitioner filed a motion to vacate his conviction
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, claiming that his Sixth Amendment right to
trial counsel was violated because his waiver of his right to trial counsel
was not made voluntarily or knowingly. [Doc. 1]. On August 16, 2013, the
Court denied Petitioner’s motion as untimely. [Doc. 5].
On September 16, 2013, Petitioner filed the pending motion to
reconsider, 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.
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

(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
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)).
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. In fact, Petitioner has
3

not even addressed the issues that served as the basis for the dismissal of
his §2255 motion.

For these reasons the Court will deny Petitioner’s

motion for reconsideration.
The Court finds that the Petitioner has not made a substantial
showing of a denial of a constitutional right. See generally 28 U.S.C. §
2253(c)(2); see also Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (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
(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. at 484-85. 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 to
Reconsider [Doc. 7] is DENIED.

4

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court declines to issue a
certificate of appealability.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Signed: December 3, 2013

5