United States District Court, D. Oregon, Eugene Division
OPINION AND ORDER
MICHAEL J. MCSHANE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
January 31, 2017, I granted Defendant Raheim Antone
Carter's Motion to Vacate or Correct Sentence under 28
U.S.C. § 2255 and Motion to Expedite. ECF Nos. 87, 90,
100. This matter comes before me on the Government's
Motion for Reconsideration. ECF No. 102. The Government's
motion is GRANTED.
28 U.S.C. § 2255
28 U.S.C. § 2255, a federal prisoner in custody under
sentence may move the court that imposed the sentence to
vacate, set aside, or correct the sentence on the ground
[T]he sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution
or laws of the United States, or that the court was without
jurisdiction to impose such sentence, or that the sentence
was in excess of the maximum authorized by law, or is
otherwise subject to collateral attack . . . .
28 U.S.C. § 2255(a).
petitioner must file his motion seeking relief under §
2255 within a one-year statute of limitations, which runs
from the latest of four dates: (1) when the judgment of
conviction became final; (2) when the impediment to making a
motion created by governmental action in violation of the
Constitution or laws of the United States is removed, if the
movant was prevented from making a motion by such
governmental action; (3) when the right asserted is initially
recognized by the Supreme Court, if that right has been newly
recognized by the Supreme Court and made retroactively
applicable to cases on collateral review; or (4) when the
facts supporting the claim or claims could have been
discovered through the exercise of due diligence. 28 U.S.C.
petitioner may make a second or successive motion under
§ 2255 if a panel of the appropriate court of appeals
certifies that the motion contains either newly discovered
evidence or “a new rule of constitutional law, made
retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme
Court, that was previously unavailable.” 28 U.S.C.
Motion for Reconsideration
for reconsideration are disfavored and are only appropriate
if the district court “(1) is presented with newly
discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial
decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an
intervening change in controlling law.” Sch. Dist.
No. 1J, Multnomah Cty. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255,
1263 (9th Cir. 1993) (citations omitted). Motions for
reconsideration are granted sparingly. Id. at 1263;
Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d
877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). A motion for reconsideration may
not be used to present arguments that were or could have been
raised in the initial motion. Carroll v. Nakatani,
342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003).
September 26, 2006, Defendant Raheim Antone Carter was
convicted by guilty plea of Conspiracy to Commit Bank
Robbery, in violation 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 and 2113(a),
and Bank Robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2
and 2113(a). ECF Nos. 42, 45. Mr. Carter had previously been
convicted of Unlawful Possession of a Short-Barreled Gun in
violation of ...