You're viewing Docket Item 370 from the case USA v. Gonzalez-Castellanos et al. View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:




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


)
)

)

)

)
)

)

)

)
)

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER









UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,





Plaintiff,


v.
DARRELL GIBSON,
Defendant.












** ** ** ** **

This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion for a
Writ of Habeas Corpus to Bring My Person Into Federal Custody for
Hearing to Show Cause Why on Court Record My Federal Revocation
(Date Filed – 6-10-13, entered 6-11-13) Was/Is Unconstitional [DE
369]. Defendant Gibson asks the Court for a hearing so that he
might demonstrate that his court-appointed counsel, Attorney
Benjamin P. Hicks, “was/is, in an intimate relationship with
[Gibson’s] ex-wife and co-defendant ‘JENNIFER WAFFORD ANDERSON
GIBSON’” (emphasis in original) and that Attorney Hicks led Gibson
“to believe [sic] that [Gibson’s] federal guidelines were in a
greater range then [sic] they actually were . . . and . . . advised
[Gibson] to stipulate in federal court, as to [Gibson’s] guilt,
without preparing an adaquit defence [sic],” such that his
constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel and due
process were denied.

Effectively, Gibson is again seeking to alter, amend, or



1

vacate the Judgment [DE 362] entered in favor of the United States
with respect to Gibson’s first Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or
Correct His Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 2255 [DE 355]. The
Court reminds Gibson that it “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 previously considered. Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n v.
Argent Indus., Inc., 746 F.Supp. 705, 706 (S.D. Ohio 1989).

Having considered Gibson’s 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 369] is
DENIED.

This the 18th day of November, 2013.



2