USA v. Roberts et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
STERLING H. ROBERTS,
Defendant,
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Case No. 3:18-cr-32-1
Judge Thomas M. Rose
Magistrate Judge Michael M. Merz
______________________________________________________________________________
ENTRY AND ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RECONSIDER DENIAL OF
DEFENDANT’S 28 U.S.C. § 2255 MOTION UNDER RULE 59(e) (DOC. NO. 479)
______________________________________________________________________________
This § 2255 proceeding, brought pro se by Defendant Sterling Roberts under 28 U.S.C. §
2255, is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. No. 479). The Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide for a motion for reconsideration under that name, but they
do allow for a motion to amend the judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), provided the motion is
filed within twenty-eight days of judgment. Defendant’s motion is timely under that rule and will
be treated as made under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e).
For a district court to grant relief under Rule 59(e), “there must be ‘(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.’” Betts v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 558 F.3d 461, 474 (6th Cir. 2009)
(quoting Henderson v. Walled Lake Consol. Sch., 469 F.3d 479, 496 (6th Cir. 2006)).
Motions to alter or amend judgment may be granted if there is a clear
error of law, see Sault Ste. Marie Tribe, 146 F.3d at 374, newly
discovered evidence, see id., an intervening change in controlling
constitutional law, Collison v. International Chem. Workers Union,
Case: 3:18-cr-00032-TMR-MRM Doc #: 480 Filed: 12/10/25 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
Local 217, 34 F.3d 233, 236 (4th Cir. 1994); Hayes v. Douglas
Dynamics, Inc., 8 F.3d 88, 90-91 n.3 (1st Cir. 1993); School District
No. 1J v. ACANDS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993), or to
prevent manifest injustice. Davis, 912 F.2d at 133; Collison, 34 F.3d
at 236; Hayes, 8 F.3d at 90-91 n.3. See also North River Ins. Co. v.
Cigna Reinsurance Co., 52 F.3d 1194, 1218 (3d Cir. 1995).
To constitute "newly discovered evidence," the evidence must have
been previously unavailable. See ACandS, 5 F.3d at 1263; Javetz v.
Board of Control, Grand Valley State Univ. 903 F. Supp. 1181, 1191
(W.D. Mich. 1995)(and cases cited therein); Charles A. Wright, 11
Federal Practice and Procedure § 2810.1 at 127-28 (1995).
Gencorp, Inc. v. American Int'l Underwriters, 178 F.3d 804, 834 (6th Cir. 1999), accord, Nolfi v.
Ohio Ky. Oil Corp., 675 F.3d 538, 551-52 (6th Cir. 2011), quoting Leisure Caviar, LLC v. United
States Fish & Wildlife Serv., 616 F.3d 612, 615 (6th Cir. 2010).
A motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) is not an opportunity to reargue a case. Sault Ste.
Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians v. Engler, 146 F.3d 367, 374 (6th Cir. 1998) (citation omitted).
Thus, parties should not use them to raise arguments which could and should have been made
before judgment issued. Id.; McBride v. Skipper, 76 F.4 th 509 (6th Cir. 2023). Howard v. United
States, 533 F.3d 472, 475 (6th Cir. 2008) (“[A] petitioner fil[ing] a Rule 59(e) motion . . . may request
only that the district court reconsider matters actually raised before it. This is because, as this court has
repeatedly held, Rule 59(e) motions cannot be used to present new arguments that could have been
raised prior to judgment”).
Motions under Rule 59(e) must establish either a manifest error of law or must present
newly discovered evidence. Id. In ruling on a Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion, “courts will not address
new arguments or evidence that the moving party could have raised before the decision issued.
See 11 C. Wright, A. Miller, & M. Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2810.1, pp. 163-164
Case: 3:18-cr-00032-TMR-MRM Doc #: 480 Filed: 12/10/25 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>

3
(3d ed. 2012) (Wright & Miller); accord, Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U. S. 471, 485-486, n.
5 (2008) (quoting prior edition).” Banister v. Davis, 590 U.S. 504 (2020).
Reviewing Defendant’s Motion, the Court finds that it depends entirely on arguments made
prior to judgment and rejected by the Court. It does not advert to any issue not considered by the
Court in denying Defendant’s § 2255 Motion. 	To the extent Defendant believes the Court’s
decision was in error, he is of course free to attempt to persuade the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals
of his claims, provided that, that Court grants him a certificate of appealability, which this Court
has denied. 	Hence, the Motion to Reconsider Denial of Defendant’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion
Under Rule 59(e) (Doc. No. 479) is DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED in Dayton, Ohio, this Wednesday, December 10, 2025.
s/Thomas M. Rose
________________________________
THOMAS M. ROSE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case: 3:18-cr-00032-TMR-MRM Doc #: 480 Filed: 12/10/25 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>