Free Motion for Reconsideration - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

e L L
! ase 2:O2—cr—OO460—I\/IHIVI Document 35-2 Filed O3/29/2006 Pa e 1 0f3

. ] i --7
2 ~ ` li
3 y ri
4
5 ‘
6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT p
7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA -_
9 United States of America, CR 02-0460-001-PHX-MHML',
_ l0 Plaintiff, ORDER ·- ‘
ll vs. I
l2 I Q
13 Charles T. Winkler, _ q
n 14 Defendant. ·
15 V
p 16 Currently before the Court is Defendant's pro se motion to dismiss case for want of
17 prosecution. (Dkt. #31). Having reviewed the motion the Court issues the following Order.
18 I. Background _ R g ·
19 On October 21, 2002, Defendant pleaded guilty to violating 18 U.S.C. § 1708, Theft
20 of Mail. The Court sentenced Defendant to a term of seven months imprisonment and upon
21 release from imprisonment a term of thirty-six months of supervised release. Subsequently,
22 the Court signed a petition and a superseding petition to revoke Defendants supervised
23 release, alleging Defendant had violated the temis of his supervised release by committing
24 identity theft. Defendant is serving a term of seven and a half years imprisonment, imposed
25 by the Superior Court of Maricopa Cormty arising out of identity theftcharges.
26 On November 30, 2004, Defendant filed a pro se motion to dismiss eharges or for a
speedy trial, requesting the Court to quash the petition to revoke his supervised release
ig because his current state sentence of seven and a half years is greater then the term of
se 2:O2—cr—OO460—I\/IHIVI Document 35-2 Filed O3/29/2006 Page 2 of 3

- ` 1 Defendant's federal sentence, thirty—six months of supervised release. Hence, Defendant
2 argued revoking his supervised release would be superfluous. i On January 14, 2005, the
3 Court denied the motion because any sentence the Court imposes pursuant to revoking
4 Defendant's supervised release would likely run consecutively to Defendant's state sentence.
5 II. Discussion
6 Currently, in his motion to dismiss charges, Defendant requests the Court dismiss the
7 charges for want of prosecution or resolve the matter with no excludable delay because
8 additional punishment would cause a harsh burden on Defendant and his family.
9 Defendant’s motion is essentially a motion for reconsideration of the‘Court’s January 14,
10 2005 Order. ‘ i
i 11 Motions for reconsideration are disfavored and are only appropriate if the Court (1)
12 is presented with newly discovered evidence; (2) committedclear error or the initial decision
13 was manifestly unjust; or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law. Qijtmm
14 States v. Alexander, 106 F.3d 874, 876 (9th Cir. 1997) citing Thomas v. Bible, 983 F.2d 152,
15 154 (9th Cir. 1993) cert. denied, 508 U.S. 951 (1993). n
16 As Plaintiff essentially makes the same argument as previously articulated, he has not
17 stated a basis for reconsideration of this Court’s Order, denying his request to dismiss the
.18 charges or for a speedy trial. ~— See Alexander, 106 F.3d at 876 (setting forth three
19 circumstances where reconsideration is appropriate). Ftnthermore, Defendant’s arguments
20 are without merit because the Government may postpone prosecuting the revocation of
21 Defendant's supervised release until after Defendant is released from state custody.
22 States v. Garrett. 253 F.3d 443, 449 (9th Cir. 2001).
23 Accordingly,
24 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's motion to dismiss case for want of
25 prosecution is denied. (Dkt. #31). p
26 DATED this 5‘“ day of August, 2005.
p 27
28 B
nite Stags ala
se 2:O2—cr—OO460—I\/IHIVI Document 35-2 Filed O3/29/2006 ag 3 of 3

Case 2:02-cr-00460-MHM

Document 35-2

Filed 03/29/2006

Page 1 of 3

Case 2:02-cr-00460-MHM

Document 35-2

Filed 03/29/2006

Page 2 of 3

Case 2:02-cr-00460-MHM

Document 35-2

Filed 03/29/2006

Page 3 of 3