United States District Court, C.D. Illinois, Peoria Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Michael M. Mihm United States District Judge.
before the Court is Petitioner's Motion for
Reconsideration. (D. 12). For the reasons stated herein, the
Motion is DENIED, and the case remains CLOSED.
August 30, 2018, Petitioner Ronald Hunter filed a petition
for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241,
arguing that the retroactive application of Rosemond v.
United States, 572 U.S. 65 (2014), exonerated him of his
convictions. (D. 1, pp. 14, 16). On July 31, 2019, this Court
denied his petition and dismissed his claim, as he failed to
satisfy the procedural requirements to consider the merits of
his petition. (D. 10). Judgment was entered on August 2,
2019. (D. 11). On August 30, 2019, Petitioner filed a Motion
for Reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
59(e). (D. 12). This Order follows.
motion to alter or amend a judgment must be filed no later
than twenty-eight days after judgment is entered.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). A timely motion under Rule 59(e) is
effectively a motion for reconsideration. Motions under Rule
59(e) are granted in rare circumstances to correct manifest
errors of law or fact, to present new evidence, or where
there has been an intervening and substantial change in the
controlling law. Divane v. Krull Elec. Co., Inc.,
194 F.3d 845, 848 (7th Cir. 1999). A party moving for
reconsideration bears a heavy burden of establishing the
court should reverse its prior judgment. Caisse Nationale
de Credit Agricole v. CBI Indus., Inc., 90 F.3d 1264,
1270 (7th Cir. 1996). “A ‘manifest error' is
not demonstrated by the disappointment of the losing party.
It is the ‘wholesale disregard, misapplication, or
failure to recognize controlling precedent.'”
Oto v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 224 F.3d 601, 606 (7th
Cir. 2000) (quoting Sedrak v. Callahan, 987 F.Supp.
1063, 1069 (N.D. Ill. 1997)). In a motion to reconsider, it
is not appropriate to argue matters that could have been
raised in prior motions or to rehash previously rejected
arguments. Caisse Nationale, 90 F.3d at 1270.
Motion for Reconsideration, Petitioner argues (1) the
Court's ruling is misplaced in light of United States
v. Moore, 936 F.2d 1508 (7th Cir. 1991) and United
States v. Salazar, 983 F.2d 778 (7th Cir. 1991); (2)
Rosemond v. United States, 572 U.S. 65 (2014),
applies to his case because, according to Petitioner, his
aiding and abetting conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 2 was
combined with the 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) firearm charge in
Count 5 of his indictment; and (3) the jury relied on
confusing jury instructions. Petitioner does not introduce
any new evidence in his Motion, so the Court limits its
review to correcting any manifest errors of law or fact.
Petitioner argues this Court should reconsider its decision
based on Moore and Salazar, which were both
issued in 1991. Motions under Rule 59(e) do not allow a party
to advance arguments that could and should have been
presented to the district court prior to judgment.
Bordelon v. Chi. Sch. Reform Bd. of Trustees, 233
F.3d 524, 529 (7th Cir. 2000). Because Petitioner had the
opportunity to present these cases in his petition or reply
and failed to do so, his arguments based on Moore
and Salazar cannot be advanced now. Therefore,
Petitioner's first ground for reconsideration is DENIED.
Petitioner asserts that the Supreme Court's holding in
Rosemond applies to his case because his aiding and
abetting conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 2 was combined
with the 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) firearm charge in Count 5 of
his indictment. (D. 12, p. 2). Petitioner made the same
argument in his petition. In its previous Order, this Court
reiterated that his aiding and abetting conviction under 18
U.S.C. § 2 was combined with the intentional killing
charge under 21 U.S.C. § 848(e)(1)(A) in Count 4 of the
indictment. It was not combined with the § 924(c)
firearms charge outlined in Count 5 as Petitioner claims.
Therefore, the clarification Rosemond provided
between 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) and 18 U.S.C. § 2 does
not apply. Petitioner's second ground for reconsideration
is also DENIED.
Petitioner contends that his convictions cannot stand because
the jury relied on confusing jury instructions that
improperly reduced the Government's burden of proof. (D.
12, p. 3). According to Petitioner, there was no evidence
that he ever used or carried a firearm during and in relation
to a drug trafficking crime in violation of § 924(c).
Petitioner made the same argument in his petition. (ECF No.
1, p. 17). It is inappropriate for Petitioner to use a Rule
59(e) motion to “rehash” old arguments. See
Caisse Nationale, 90 F.3d at 1270. Petitioner's
third ground for reconsideration is DENIED.
fails to present the Court with any viable claims of manifest
error of law or fact. His Motion amounts to nothing more than
repeating his previously rejected arguments and presenting
caselaw that has been available for nearly thirty years. As a
result, his Motion is DENIED in its entirety.
reasons stated above, Petitioner's Motion for
Reconsideration  is ...