Duran v. USA
Filing
41
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. It is ORDERED that Movant's objections (# 38 ) are OVERRULED. It is further ORDERED that Movant's Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment (# 40 ) is DENIED. Signed by District Judge Marcia A. Crone on 4/15/2021. (rpc, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
GILBERT DURAN, #09533-078
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:16-CV-851
CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 4:14-CR-53(9)
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
In a motion to set aside judgment (#40), pro se Movant Gilbert Duran asks the Court to
reconsider its Final Judgment dismissing his Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct a Sentence
filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
I. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
The Fifth Circuit has observed that “[a]ny motion that draws into question the correctness
of a judgment is functionally a motion under Civil Rule 59(e), whatever its label.” Harcon Barge
Co. v. D&G Boat Rentals, Inc., 784 F.2d 665, 669-70 (5th Cir. 1986) (en banc) (citing 9 Moore’s
Federal Practice ¶ 204.12[1] at 4-67 (1985)). “Rule 59(e) serves the narrow purpose of allowing a
party to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence. . . .
Reconsideration of a judgment after its entry is an extraordinary remedy that should be used
sparingly.” Templet v. HydroChem Inc., 367 F.3d 473, 479 (5th Cir. 2004) (internal citations and
quotations omitted). The Fifth Circuit recognizes that Rule 59(e) “favor[s] the denial of motions to
alter or amend a judgment.” Southern Constructors Grp., Inc. v. Dynalectric Co., 2 F.3d 606, 611
(5th Cir. 1993). The rule does not exist to be a vehicle for re-litigating old issues, presenting the case
under new theories, obtaining a rehearing on the merits, or taking a “second bite at the apple.” Sequa
Corp v. GBJ Corp., 156 F.3d 136, 144 (2d Cir. 1998). However, it allows a party to “question the
correctness of a judgment.” Templet, 367 F.3d at 478. The rule for reconsideration of a final
judgment allows a court to alter or amend a judgment because of (1) an intervening change in
controlling law, (2) the availability of new evidence not available previously, (3) the need to correct
a clear error of law or fact, or (4) to prevent a manifest injustice. Schiller v. Physicians Res. Grp.,
Inc., 342 F.3d 563, 567 (5th Cir. 2003).
II. DISCUSSION
The record shows that the United States Magistrate Judge issued a Report and
Recommendation in which she recommended that Movant’s § 2255 motion be denied and
dismissed with prejudice because the issues Movant raised were without merit (#35). Nineteen
days later, having received no objections, this Court adopted the Report and Recommendation,
denied Movant’s § 2255 motion, and dismissed the case (#36). Two days later, the Clerk of Court
received Movant’s objections (#38).
In the instant motion for reconsideration (#40), Movant complains that he did not receive
the Report and Recommendation until March 18, 2020. The record confirms that Movant did not
receive the Report until March 18, 2020 (#39); accordingly, Movant’s objections were timely filed
as they were filed within fourteen days of receipt of the Report. As a result, the Court has
conducted a de novo review of Movant’s objections. In his objections, Movant reurges that his
guilty plea was invalid based on ineffective assistance of counsel. He mistakenly claims, however,
that the Report states that he waived his ineffective assistance of claims. Movant is incorrect. The
Report notes that Movant’s plea agreement included a waiver of most issues on appeal and on
collateral review, but that he reserved the right to appeal the failure of the Court, after accepting
the agreement, to impose a sentence in accordance with the terms of this agreement. The Report
also notes that Movant reserved the right to appeal or seek collateral review of a claim of
2
ineffective assistance of counsel. After fully discussing the validity of Movant’s knowing and
voluntary guilty plea, the Report also fully discussed Movant’s ineffective assistance of counsel
claims and concluded that Movant failed to show that, but for counsel’s alleged deficient
performance, the result of the proceeding would have been different. Strickland v. Washington,
466 U.S. 668, 694 (1984). Movant fails to show the Report was in error or that his constitutional
rights were violated.
In sum, Movant fails to show an intervening change in controlling law, the availability of
new evidence not previously available, the need to correct a clear error of law or fact, or the need
to prevent a manifest injustice based on the dismissal of his case. Schiller, 342 F.3d at 567. He
fails to show he is entitled to relief.
III. CONCLUSION
It is therefore ORDERED that Movant’s objections (#38) are OVERRULED. It is further
ORDERED that Movant’s Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment (#40) is DENIED. All motions
by either party not previously ruled upon are DENIED.
SIGNED at Beaumont, Texas, this 15th day of April, 2021.
________________________________________
MARCIA A. CRONE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?