Allen v. United States of America

Filing 6

ORDER signed by Judge J.P. Stadtmueller on 6/19/2017 DENYING 5 Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration. (cc: all counsel, via mail to Preston D. Allen at Leavenworth USP) (jm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
PRESTON D. ALLEN,
Petitioner,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.

Case No. 17-CV-753-JPS-JPS
Criminal Case No. 15-CR-229-JPS

ORDER

On June 2, 2017, the Court dismissed Petitioner Preston D. Allen’s
(“Allen”) motion to vacate his sentence. (Docket #3 and #4). On June 15,
2017, Allen moved the Court to reconsider that ruling. (Docket #5). Allen
asserts that his motion is made pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
(“FRCP”) 59(e). “A Rule 59(e) motion will be successful,” the Court of
Appeals holds, “only where the movant clearly establishes: (1) that the
court committed a manifest error of law or fact, or (2) that newly discovered
evidence precluded entry of judgment.” Cincinnati Life Ins. Co. v. Beyrer, 722
F.3d 939, 953 (7th Cir. 2013) (quotation omitted). FRCP 59(e) “certainly does
not allow a party to introduce new evidence or advance arguments that
could and should have been presented to the district court prior to the
judgment.” Bordelon v. Chicago Sch. Reform Bd. of Trs., 233 F.3d 524, 529 (7th
Cir. 2000).
As noted in the order dismissing this action, Allen’s motion
presented only one ground for relief. (Docket #3). Allen contended that he
was “factually innocent” of a state firearms charge, thus removing the basis
for the sentencing guideline enhancement applied to him at sentencing.

(Docket #1 at 6-7). As the Court explained, no matter what happened to the
state charge, the enhancement was properly applied. (Docket #3 at 2).
Allen’s motion for reconsideration states that he “presented the
wrong argument” in his motion. (Docket #5). He claims that he meant to
allege ineffectiveness on the part of his counsel. Id. This argument is not the
proper subject for reconsideration under FRCP 59(e). Allen’s motion
supplies not even a hint of an ineffectiveness claim. See generally (Docket
#1). The Court denied Allen’s motion on the sole ground he presented on
its merits and with prejudice. Allen does not show how, in doing so, the
Court misapplied or ignored precedent, or how new evidence precludes
judgment in this matter. The motion for reconsideration must, therefore, be
denied.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration
(Docket #5) be and the same is hereby DENIED.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 19th day of June, 2017.
BY THE COURT:

____________________________________
J. P. Stadtmueller
U.S. District Judge

Page 2 of 2