You're viewing Docket Item 366 from the case USA v. Gonzalez-Castellanos et al. View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:




UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,





Plaintiff,

v.

DARRELL GIBSON,
Defendant.








)

)
)
)

)

)

)
)

)

)




5:89-cr-05-JMH-4
13-cv-7294-JMH-REW

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER









UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
CENTRAL DIVISION at LEXINGTON





** ** ** ** **

This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Response to
Opinion and Order [DE 364] in which he asks the Court to alter,
amend, or vacate the Judgment [DE 362] entered in favor of the
United States with respect to Gibson’s Motion to Vacate, Set Aside,
or Correct His Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 2255 [DE 355].
“A court may grant a motion to alter or amend judgment only if
there was ‘(1) a clear error of law; (2) newly discovered evidence;
(3) an intervening change in controlling law; or (4) a need to
prevent manifest injustice.’ “ Am. Civil Liberties Union v.
McCreary County, 607 F.3d 439, 450 (6th Cir. 2010) (quoting Intera
Corp. v. Henderson, 428 F.3d 605, 620 (6th Cir. 2005)). To
constitute “newly discovered evidence,” the evidence must have been
previously unavailable. See GenCorp, Inc. v. Amer. Int'l
Underwriters, 178 F.3d 804, 834 (6th Cir. 1999). A motion under
Rule 59(e) is not intended to be utilized to relitigate issues


1

previously considered. Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n v. Argent
Indus., Inc., 746 F.Supp. 705, 706 (S.D. Ohio 1989).

Having considered his Motion, the Court concludes that Gibson
has presented no grounds upon which this Court should alter, amend,
or vacate the judgment. Accordingly, the Motion [DE 364] is
DENIED.

This the 21st day of October, 2013.





2