USA v. HENDRICKS et al

DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
DIVISION OF ST. CROIX
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )
)
v. ) Criminal Action No. 2004-0005
)
RUSSELL E. ROBINSON, )
)
Defendant. )
__________________________________________)
Attorneys:
Alphonso G. Andrews, Jr., Esq.,
St. Croix, U.S.V.I.
For the United States
Russell E. Robinson, pro se
ORDER
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Defendant’s “Reconsideration Motion in re
Document # 1390,” filed on July 12, 2016. (Dkt. No. 1396). In his motion for reconsideration,
Defendant requests that the Court reconsider certain factual and legal conclusions contained in its
Memorandum Opinion and Order entered on July 7, 2016 (Dkt. No. 1390).1 For the reasons that
follow, the Court will deny Defendant’s Motion.
“In order to prevail on a motion for reconsideration, a plaintiff must show ‘(1) an
intervening change in the controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence that was not
available when the court [issued its order]; or (3) the need to correct clear error of law or fact or to
prevent manifest injustice.”’ Butler v. Pa. Bd. of Probation & Parole, 613 F. App’x 119, 125 (3d
Cir. 2015) (quoting Max’s Seafood Café v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999)); see also
1 In the Court’s July 7, 2016 Memorandum Opinion and Order, the Court, inter alia, granted Defendant’s request to
modify the travel condition of his supervised release as it relates to business and foreign travel; entered as an Order of
the Court a “Stipulation” that requires Defendant and his probation officer in the Middle District of Florida to follow
certain procedures when Defendant submits a request for business or foreign travel; and denied Defendant’s request
for early termination of his term of supervised release. (See Dkt. No. 1390).
Case: 1:04-cr-00005-WAL-EAH Document #: 1400 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 1 of 3

2
Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7.3. The Third Circuit has held that there is “clear error if, ‘after
reviewing the evidence,’ [the court is] ‘left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has
been committed.’” Norristown Area Sch. Dist. v. F.C., 636 F. App’x 857, 861 n.8 (3d Cir. 2016)
(quoting Oberti v. Bd. of Educ., 995 F.2d 1204, 1220 (3d Cir. 1993)).
Reconsideration “is an extraordinary remedy, and should be granted sparingly.” Boldrini
v. Wilson, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22249, at *4 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 19, 2013) (citing D’Angio v.
Borough of Nescopeck, 56 F. Supp. 2d 502, 504 (M.D. Pa. 1999)). Motions for reconsideration
“are not substitutes for appeals and are not to be used as ‘a vehicle for registering disagreement
with the court’s initial decision, for rearguing matters already addressed by the court, or for raising
arguments that could have been raised before but were not.’” Greene v. V.I. Water & Power Auth.,
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144382, at *4 (D.V.I. Oct. 5, 2012) (quoting Bostic v. AT & T of the V.I.,
312 F. Supp. 2d 731, 733, 45 V.I. 553 (D.V.I. 2004)).
Here, Defendant has not demonstrated any basis for reconsideration, such as an intervening
change in the law, new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error of law or to prevent manifest
injustice. Rather, Defendant asserts his disagreement with the Court’s July 7, 2016 ruling;
challenges certain factual findings of the Court; and raises the same arguments that the Court
previously found to be without merit. None of the foregoing complaints raised by Defendant in his
Motion are proper bases for reconsideration. See Boretsky v. Ricci, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37239,
at 19 (D.N.J. Mar. 20, 2012) (“Mere disagreement with the district court’s decision is inappropriate
on a motion for reconsideration, and should be raised through the appellate process.”); Lazaridis
v. Wehmer, 591 F.3d 666, 669 (3d Cir. 2010) (concluding that the district court appropriately
denied a motion for reconsideration where the moving party advanced the same arguments that
were in his complaint and motions).
Case: 1:04-cr-00005-WAL-EAH Document #: 1400 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 2 of 3

3
In view of the foregoing, the Court concludes that Defendant has not provided any
legitimate grounds for the Court to reconsider its July 7, 2016 Memorandum Opinion and Order.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that Defendant’s “Reconsideration Motion in re Document # 1390” is
DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Date: August 19, 2016 _______/s/_________
WILMA A. LEWIS
Chief Judge
Case: 1:04-cr-00005-WAL-EAH Document #: 1400 Filed: 08/19/16 Page 3 of 3