Wade v. United States ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION 7 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 8 Case No. 5:15-cr-00458-EJD-1 Plaintiff, 9 ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S v. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 10 BOBBY WADE, Re: Dkt. Nos. 165, 166 11 Defendant. 12 13 Before the Court is Defendant Bobby Wade’s Motion for Reconsideration. The Court 14 DENIES Defendant’s motion for reconsideration. 15 I. BACKGROUND 16 On October 24, 2019, the Court denied Defendant’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate, 17 Remand, or Set Aside. Order Denying Motion to Vacate (“Order”) at 1, Dkt. 163. In his motion 18 to vacate, Defendant argued that he was deprived effective assistance of counsel and that his 19 Fourth Amendment rights were violated. Motion to Vacate Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (“2255 20 Mot.”) at 1–7, 8–10, Dkt. 152. This Court held that Defendant’s Fourth Amendment arguments 21 were already litigated, and that Defendant could not present new Fourth Amendment arguments in 22 his 2255 Motion. Order at 2. The Court also held that Defendant failed to show that he was 23 deprived effective assistance of counsel. Id. 24 On November 21, 2019, Defendant filed a motion for reconsideration. Movant’s Motion 25 for Reconsideration Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) (“Recon Mot.”), Dkt. 165. Defendant also 26 requested a forty-five-day extension to supplement his motion with a supporting memorandum of 27 law and fact. Dkt. 165–1, at 1. Subsequently, on January 10, 2020, Defendant filed another 1 request for an additional thirty-day extension. Dkt. 166 at 1. 2 II. LEGAL STANDARD 3 Reconsideration of a final judgment, order, or proceeding is appropriate if (1) at the time of 4 the motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration, a material difference in fact or law exists 5 from that which was presented to the Court before entry of the interlocutory order for which 6 reconsideration is sought; (2) the court committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly 7 unjust; or (3) if new material facts emerge or a material change of law occurs after the time of the 8 interlocutory order. N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 7–9(b); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). Absent these three 9 things, “a motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances.” 10 Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of 11 Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000)). Reconsideration is an “extraordinary remedy, to be 12 used sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Id. (citation and 13 internal quotation marks omitted). Improper use of Rule 59(e) includes relitigating old matters or 14 raising arguments or presenting evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of 15 judgment. Zimmerman v. City of Oakland, 255 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir. 2001). 16 III. DISCUSSION 17 Defendant argues that this Court committed a clear error of law and a manifest injustice 18 when it denied his 2255 motion. Recon Mot. at 1. Specifically, Defendant argues that (1) the 19 conviction and sentencing under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) was improper pursuant to Rehaif v. United 20 States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019); (2) the Court committed clear error when it rejected Defendant’s 21 Fourth Amendment and relation-back claim; and (3) the Court’s enhanced sentencing under the 22 United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2K2.1 was erroneous. Id. at 2–3. 23 First, Rehaif does not affect this case. In Rehaif, the Supreme Court held that 18 U.S.C. 24 § 922(g) requires the Government to prove that the defendant knowingly possessed a firearm and 25 knowingly belonged to the relevant category of persons barred from possessing a firearm. 139 S. 26 Ct. at 2200. Here, the jury determined that the defendant knowingly possessed a firearm and the 27 Parties stipulated to Wade being a felon, i.e. the relevant category of persons barred from 1 possessing a firearm. See Dkt. 58 at 1; Dkt. 109; see also 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). Accordingly, 2 Rehaif has no impact on Defendant’s case and thus is irrelevant for purposes of Defendant’s 3 motion to reconsider. 4 Second, as established in this Court’s original order, Defendant is foreclosed from 5 relitigating his Fourth Amendment claims. Order at 8. In his motion for reconsideration, 6 Defendant argues that this Court committed a “clear error of law” because the Court did not 7 construe Defendant’s arguments to raise the strongest claim for relief. Recon Mot. at 2. As 8 support, Defendant cites Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972). While it is true that pro se 9 pleadings are held to a “less stringent standard” than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers, pro se 10 pleadings are not excused from complying with legal standards. See Haines, 404 U.S. at 520. 11 Haines is inapposite to this case. Here, unlike Haines, the Court can say beyond doubt that 12 Defendant can prove no set of facts that would entitle him to relief. See Order at 8 (discussing 13 how ample probable cause supported warrant underlying search of Defendant’s cell phone). 14 Defendant thus has not shown that the Court committed “clear error of law” and the Court rejects 15 Defendant’s attempt to relitigate his Fourth Amendment claim. See Zimmerman, 255 F.3d at 740. 16 Third, Defendant argues that this Court should reexamine his sentence. Recon Mot. at 2. 17 He cites Mathis v. United States, 391 U.S. 1 (1968) and Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 18 (2013) as support. Id. at 2. This is the first time Defendant makes this argument. See generally 19 2255 Mot. (making a Fourth Amendment and ineffective assistance of counsel argument). The 20 Court did not address this argument in its Order. See generally Order (holding that Defendant 21 failed to establish a Fourth Amendment violation and failed to show he was deprived effective 22 assistance of counsel). Hence, for Defendant to present this new argument, he must show that a 23 material change in fact or law arose after the Court filed its Order. See N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 7–9(b). 24 Defendant has not done this. Mathis and Descamps existed long before the Court issued its Order 25 and Defendant provides no details indicating a change in fact. Accordingly, the Court rejects 26 Defendant’s resentencing argument. 27 Finally, Defendant maintains that the Court committed a clear error of law by holding that his 1 supplement did not relate back to his Section 2255 Motion. Recon Mot. at 3. The Court 2 disagrees. Defendant’s Section 2255 motion and his subsequent supplement were based on 3 || different facts and legal theories. See Order at 7 (holding that supplement was different in both 4 || “time and form”). Accordingly, no error of law was made and the Court rejects Defendant’s 5 relation-back argument. 6 IV. CONCLUSION 7 Defendant has not met the standard for reconsideration. Therefore, Defendant’s Motion 8 || for Reconsideration is DENIED.' 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 Dated: February 13, 2020 11 EDWARD J. DAVILA %L United States District Judge 15 16 = 17 Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 ' Defendant’s requests for extra time to submit a supporting memorandum of law are thus also DENIED. See Dkt. Nos. 165-1, 166. 28 || Case No.: 5:15-cr-00458-EJD-1 ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION