United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Jacksonville Division
MORALES HOWARD UNITED SLATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
CAUSE is before the Court on Defendant Katrina
Brown's motion for reconsideration. See
Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration for Docket Number
305 (Doc. 308; Motion for Reconsideration), filed on December
5, 2019. In the Motion for Reconsideration, Katrina Brown
asks the Court to reconsider the rulings in the Order entered
on November 25, 2019, in which the Court denied Defendant
Katrina Brown's Motion for Judgement [sic] of Acquittal
and Memorandum of Law (Doc. 292) and Defendant Katrina
Brown's Motion for New Trial and Memorandum of Law (Doc.
293) (collectively Motions). See Order (Doc. 305).
Upon consideration, the Court finds that the Motion for
Reconsideration is due to be denied.
the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure do not specifically
authorize motions for reconsideration, both the Supreme Court
and [the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals] have permitted
parties to file such motions in criminal cases.”
Serrano v. United States, 411 Fed.Appx. 253, 254-55
(11th Cir. 2011) (citing United States v. Phillips,
597 F.3d 1190, 1199-1200 (11th Cir. 2010)). In adjudicating
motions for reconsideration in criminal cases, district
courts have relied on the standards applicable to motions for
reconsideration filed in civil cases pursuant to Rule 59,
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See, e.g .,
United States v. Hammoud, No. 8:04-cr-2-T-27MAP,
2012 WL 13176320, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 13, 2012);
United States v. Sabooni, No. 09-20298-CR, 2014 WL
4385446, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 4, 2014). “The only
grounds for granting a Rule 59 motion are newly discovered
evidence or manifest errors of law or fact.” Arthur
v. King, 500 F.3d 1335, 1343 (11th Cir. 2007)
(quotations and citations omitted). This Court has
interpreted those parameters to include “(1) an
intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability
of new evidence; and (3) the need to correct clear error or
manifest injustice.” Lamar Advertising of Mobile,
Inc. v. City of Lakeland, Fla., 189 F.R.D. 480, 489
(M.D. Fla. 1999).
the purpose of a motion for reconsideration is not to ask the
Court to reexamine an unfavorable ruling in the absence of a
manifest error of law or fact. See Jacobs v. Tempur-Pedic
Int'l., Inc., 626 F.3d 1327, 1344 (11th Cir. 2010).
As such, a motion for reconsideration cannot be used
“to relitigate old matters, raise argument or present
evidence that could have been raised prior to the”
Court's ruling. Michael Linet, Inc. v. Village of
Wellington, Fla., 408 F.3d 757, 763 (11th Cir. 2005).
Indeed, permitting a party to raise new arguments on a motion
for reconsideration “essentially affords a litigant
‘two bites of the apple.'” Am. Home
Assurance Co. v. Glenn Estess & Assocs., Inc., 763
F.2d 1237, 1239 (11th Cir. 1985). Finally, “[w]hen
evaluating a motion for reconsideration, a court should
proceed cautiously, realizing that in the interests of
finality and conservation of scarce judicial resources,
reconsideration of a previous order is an extraordinary
remedy to be employed sparingly.” United States v.
Bailey, 288 F.Supp.2d 1261, 1267 (M.D. Fla. 2003)
(citation and quotation omitted).
Motion for Reconsideration, Katrina Brown expresses
disagreement with the Court's rulings and continues to
assert arguments that the Court rejected in its
Order. As such, Defendant's Motion for
Reconsideration is due to be denied.
Motion for Reconsideration for Docket Number 305 (Doc. 308)
 Although the Government responded to
Katrina Brown's original Motions, it has not yet
responded to the Motion for Reconsideration. However, because
the Motion for Reconsideration raises no new arguments, no
further response is necessary.
Katrina Brown questions whether
the Court instructed the jury multiple times during trial
that what the attorneys say is not evidence. See
Motion for Reconsideration at 1. This contention is refuted
by the record, as the Court gave this instruction throughout
the trial, including immediately before opening and ...