Free Motion to Amend/Correct - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:00-cr-00069-AHN Document 237 Filed O3/O2/2006 Page 1 of 4
, T
( ` UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT i
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT §?§TjFET§ i
I
mmm EM zum) Mm -2 e n2= us
Petitipner: Case Nc S:OO—CR—UOES(AHN)
RI5EETRTC`T COURT`
v 5:OA-CU—T3R3(AHNM"FQRtCUTN T
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, E
Respcndentz
NOTICE OF APPEAL/MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT W
COMES NUM, the Petitipner, Clintpn Cbx, prc—se (Hereinafter, ' T
“Petitipner") and hereby (T) appeals tp the United States Ccurt
ef Appeals Fer the Secand Circuit Frpm the decisipn denying Retitibner's T
Mctipn Fur A New Trial; and (2) Request Fur Recensideraticn pn his I
Retitipn Fer Nrit ct Audita Ouerela pursuant tc Federal Rules ct T
Civil Rrpcedure, Rule 5S(e) In suppcrt bf, it is stated:
Diseussicn
Recpnsideraticn:
A mctian tp alter pr amend judgment is brcught under Fed R
Civ P 5S(e), and must be Filed ne later than ten (TO) days after
entry ct the judgment The judgment in this case under cpnsidera—
ticn is dated February T6, EOO6. Petiticner received said judgment T
pn February T9, ZOOS, with a United States pcstage date ef February _
T7, ZOO6 (See, envelppe attached heretc) Thus, the instant
mptipn dated February 2A, ZOO6, is Filed timely
Recpnsideratipn is warranted cnly where cpntrclling law has
changed, new evidence is available, clear errcr must be ccrrected,
pr manifest injustice prevented. Hartz v. Agway, Bh9 F.Supp. 166—
S7 (N.D.N.Y. 199h) (citaticn emitted). The rules Fur recpnsidera—
ticn are striekly ccnstrued tc avpid repetitive arguments pn issues






. `___l
\ Case 3:00-cr-00069-AHN Document 237 Filed O3/O2/2006 Page 2 of 4
, ‘ \
[ ` that have been Fully ccnsidered by the cburt U‘Brien v. Beard uf g
Educ. ¤f.Deer Park Unicn Free Schuel District, 127 F.5upp.2d 3h2,
3h5 (E.D.N.V. ZDU1). A mbtibn Fer reccnsideratien is apprmpriate 5
when the mpving party can demgnstrate that the ecurt everlepked K
"cbntrelling decisiens cr Factual matters that were put befere it E
en the underlying meticn ... end which, had they been ccnsidered, i
might have reasenebly altered the result befere the cpurt." Begg; i
Read Music, Inc. v. Music Sales Burg., 9D F.5upp.2d 39U, 392 (5.0. E
N.V. ZUDD). A mmtien Fer recpnsideratien is net tc be used when a Q
party simply dbes nbt agree with the way that the criginal deci— i
sian was resplved In Re Huubigant Inc., 91E F.5upp. 997, 1UD1 i
(S.D.N.V. 1996). Alternatively, the mevant must demcnstrate "the
need te cprreet a clear errer er prevent manifest injustiee." §£i£— 5
fin Indus., Inc. v. Petrujam, Ltd., 72 F.5upp.2d 365, 368 (5 D N.V. `
1999). g
Discussipn I
In denying Petitiener's mbtibn Fer Hrit cf Audita Querela,
this Ceurt nbted, "That Bunker is net retrsactive tc cmnvictibns
that became Final befere January 12, ZUU5; and that Petitibner
"may still raise his Becker challenge in e secend petitimn Fer
habeas cbrpus under 25 U.5 C. § 2255, sp lung as he applies tp the
Seccnd Circuit Fer autherizatien te db sb under 2B U 5 C § 22hh(b) l
(3).“ (See, Eeurt's ruling, dated February 16, ZUUE, at page 2).
First, Audita Querela is prebably available where there is a
legal, as centrested with equitable, cbjecticn tb cenvictien that
has arisen subsequent tb cenvictipn that is net redressable pursuant
tb anether pbst—cenvicticn remedy LaP1ante v. United States,, 57
F.3d 253 (2nd Cir. 1995), in LaP1ante the Eburt preperly determined

, ```” ——m`—_“W_—%"/
I Case 3:00-cr-00069-AHN Document 237 Filed O3/O2/2006 Page30f4
i ` l that epllateral relief was net available, because nething had E
I pecurred subsequent te the cenvictipn that remptely created a
E legal mbjectiun te the cpnvietipn. Mprepver, the Cpurt made clear I
that authmrity relied pn by the petitipner applied retrpactively. i
Ig. at 253. Unlike, the case at bart
Eecpnd and finally, this Cburt pyerlppked centrelling autherity 5
frem the Supreme Ccurt that suppmrts Retitipner’cannet satisfy the l
twc prengs ef 28 U,5 C § 22AA(b)(5). See, Dedd v. United States, I
162 L.Ed.2d 3h3 (ZDD5) (cne—year limitatipn peried fer federal I
pris¤ner's mctipn fer relief frcm sentence under 2B U S C § 2255 E
cn basis pf newly recpgnized right held te begin when right recpg— {
nized, rather than when right made retr¤active), Id. Q
Cpnclusipn X
Fer all pf the fcregping reaspns, Petitipner asks this Hpncra— I
ble Cpurt tp grant the instant mutipn te alter er amend the judge 1
ment I
2
I
Respectfully submitted,
.
CERTIFICATE UF SERVICE
I, Clintpn Cpx, hereby certify that I have served a true and cprrect F
cepy cf the fcregping “Nbtice mf Appeal/Metipn tp Alter cr Amend [
Judgment" which is deemed filed at the time it was delivered tp J
U5P—Lewisburg prispn authprities fer fprwarding te the Ceurt, see,
Huustun v. Lack, 1U? L.Ed.2d 2h5 (TQBB), upcn the Cpurt and parties
tp litigatipn and/cr his/her attbrney(s) sf reccrd, by placing same
in a sealed, pestage prepaid envelepe addressed td: I
l

. -————~·—-—-—·~————
N Case 3:00-cr-00069-AHN Document 237 Filed O3/O2/2006 Page 4 of 4 (
l ` ` United States Atturney Fer the District at Cannecticut .
Federal Building & U. 5. Caurthuuse
915 Lafayette Buulevard
Hridgepart, Cunnecticut U66Uh E
[ and depbsited same in the United States Pastel Mail at the USP- \
I Lewisburg, P U Hex 1UUC, Lewisburg, Pennsylvania 17H37r i
Signed an this iff day af February, ZDU6.
i Respectfully submitted, ?
CLINTDN CDX )
PRD-SE LITIEANT
Reg . Nu . /jf‘§"70}‘%
I