TOWNSEND v. USA

Filing 9

MEMORANDUM ORDER. Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 8 ) is DENIED. See contents of this filing. Signed by Judge Cathy Bissoon on 4/3/19. (rdl)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
KENNETH TOWNSEND,
Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 18-215
(Related to Criminal Action No. 12-125-3)
Judge Cathy Bissoon

MEMORANDUM ORDER
Pending before the Court is Petitioner Kenneth Townsend’s Motion for Reconsideration
(Doc. 8) of the Court’s judgment denying his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Doc. 2). For the
reasons that follow, Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration will be denied.
“A judgment may be altered or amended if the party seeking reconsideration shows at
least one of the following grounds: (1) an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) the
availability of new evidence . . . ; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or fact or to
prevent manifest injustice.” Max’s Seafood Cafe v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999).
While Petitioner asserts that “[t]he movant brings forward the specification of the
errors/newly discovered evidence upon which movant seeks to convince the Court to alter/amend
its judgment,” (Motion for Reconsideration 1), Petitioner does not identify an error of law or
fact, nor does he identify newly discovered evidence.
Rather, Petitioner raises several arguments that are similar to those he raised previously,
and which were rejected by the Court. Specifically, he argues that he went to trial only because
his counsel advised him that the government would not offer a plea deal with a sentence below
fifteen years imprisonment; that his request for discovery should be granted so that he can
1

establish the existence of a written plea offer; that his enhanced sentence for obstruction of
justice and his initial designation as a career offender show that he was prejudiced by counsel’s
advice; that counsel incorrectly advised him that he lacked standing to challenge a wiretap; and
that he never received a copy of the affidavit supporting the wiretap.
All of these arguments are addressed (or rendered moot) by the Court’s Memorandum
Order (Doc. 1).
*

*

*

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:
Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 8) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

April 3, 2019

s\Cathy Bissoon
Cathy Bissoon
United States District Judge

cc (via ECF email notification):
All Counsel of Record

cc (via First-Class U.S. Mail):
Kenneth Townsend
No. 33585-068
F.C.I. Loretto
P.O. BOX 1000
LORETTO, PA 15940

2