UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. MCMILLAN

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
VALDOSTA DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
v.
TERRY LEONARD MCMILLAN,
Defendant.
___________________________________
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
CASE NO: 7:24-CR-30 (WLS-ALS-1)
ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 53), filed on
October 21, 2025. Therein, Defendant moves the Court to reconsider its ruling on
Defendant’s Motion to Suppress (Doc. 30). For the reasons discussed below, the Motion for
Reconsideration (Doc. 53) is DENIED.
I. 	RELEVANT BACKGROUND
Defendant was charged in a one-count Indictment (Doc. 1) on August 14, 2024, with
Possession of a Firearm by a Convicted Felon. Defendant filed a Motion to Suppress (Doc. 30)
on January 29, 2025, and the Government timely responded. (See Doc. 32). The Court held an
evidentiary hearing on the Motion on July 8, 2025, and afterwards provided the Parties with
the opportunity to submit post-hearing briefs. (See Doc. 45). Defendant filed his Post Hearing
Brief (Doc. 47) on August 26, 2025. The Government filed its own Post Hearing Brief
(Doc. 48) on September 5, 2025. The Court issued an Order (Doc. 52) granting in part and
denying 	in 	part 	the 	Motion. 	In 	response, 	Defendant 	filed 	the 	instant 	Motion 	for
Reconsideration (Doc. 53). The Court ordered the Government to respond, which it timely
did so. (See Docs. 54 & 55). As such, the Motion is ripe for resolution.
II. 	LAW AND ANALYSIS
Under the Local Rules of this Court, motions for reconsideration shall not be filed as
a matter of routine practice. M.D. Ga. L.R. 7.6. Motions for reconsideration, whether
considering final or non-final judgments, are within “the sound discretion of the district
Case 7:24-cr-00030-WLS-ALS Document 57 Filed 10/29/25 Page 1 of 3

2
judge.” Region 8 Forest Serv. Timber Purchasers Council v. Alcock, 993 F.2d 800, 805–06 (11th Cir.
1993). It is the practice of this Court, in both civil and criminal cases, to grant a motion for
reconsideration only when the movant timely demonstrates that: (1) there has been an
intervening change in the law; (2) new and previously unavailable evidence has been discovered
through the exercise of due diligence; or (3) reconsideration is necessary to correct a clear error
of law or prevent manifest injustice. McCoy v. Macon Water Auth., 966 F. Supp. 1209, 1222–23
(M.D. Ga. 1997). “A motion for reconsideration is not an opportunity for the moving
party . . . to instruct the court on how the court ‘could have done it better’ the first time.” Pres.
Endangered Areas of Cobb’s Hist., Inc. v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 916 F. Supp. 1557, 1560 (N.D.
Ga. 1995), aff’d, 87 F.3d 1242 (11th Cir. 1996). Nor can a motion for reconsideration be used
to “relitigate old matters, raise arguments, or present evidence that could have been raised
prior to the entry of judgment.” Smith v. Ocwen Fin., 488 F. App’x 426, 428 (11th Cir. 2012).
Here, Defendant moves the Court to reconsider its finding that his statements captured
on the body worn camera video between time stamps 21:15 to 31:18 are admissible. Defendant
argues that the Court erred by not conducting an analysis under Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U.S. 96
(1975) to determine whether his first invocation of his right to remain silent was “scrupulously
honored.” (Doc. 53 at 2). Defendant does not point to any intervening change in the law or
new and previously unavailable evidence, nor does he argue that a clear error of law exists or
that reconsideration is necessary to prevent manifest injustice. Rather, Defendant merely
disagrees with the Court’s analysis and conclusion, contending that it ruled in error. To warrant
reconsideration, however, an error must be “clear and obvious,” which is not the case “if the
legal issues are ‘at least arguable.’” United States v. Battle, 272 F.Supp.2d 1354, 1358 (N.D. Ga.
2003) (quoting Am. Home Assurance Co. v. Glenn Estess & Assoc., Inc., 763 F.2d 1237, 1239 (11th
Cir. 1985)). As such, the Court finds no clear error of law in the partial denial of Defendant’s
Motion to Suppress.
Case 7:24-cr-00030-WLS-ALS Document 57 Filed 10/29/25 Page 2 of 3

3
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 53) is
DENIED.
SO ORDERED, this 29th day of October 2025.
/s/ W. Louis Sands
W. LOUIS SANDS, SR. JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Case 7:24-cr-00030-WLS-ALS Document 57 Filed 10/29/25 Page 3 of 3