Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Carter

United States District Court, D. Oregon, Eugene Division

March 7, 2017

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
RAHEIM ANTONE CARTER, Defendant.

          OPINION AND ORDER

          MICHAEL J. MCSHANE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         On 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.

         Legal Standards

         I. 28 U.S.C. § 2255

         Under 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 that:

[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).

         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. § 2255(f).

         A 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. § 2255(h).

         II. Motion for Reconsideration

         Motions 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).

         Background

         I. Factual Background

         On 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 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.