Woods v. Greene

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ROBERT Q. WOODS,
Petitioner,
v.
J. GREENE,
Respondent.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Civil No. 1:25-CV-00684
Judge Jennifer P. Wilson
MEMORANDUM
Before the court is Petitioner Robert Q. Woods’ motion for reconsideration
of the court’s October 22, 2025 order closing the case. (Doc. 28.)1 The crux of the
motion is that the court reviewed the incorrect sentencing hearing transcript and, if
the court had reviewed the correct transcript, it would see that his presentence
investigation report (“PSR”) was not adopted at the time of sentencing. (Id.) The
court did review the correct sentencing hearing transcript and determined that the
sentencing court adopted the PSR in full. Therefore, the court will deny
Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL H ISTORY
On August 28, 2018, Petitioner was sentenced to 151 months of
imprisonment after pleading guilty to conspiracy to distribute and to the
1 Petitioner did not file a brief in support of his motion for reconsideration as required under
Local Rule 7.5. However, the motion itself contains his arguments. (Doc. 28.) Therefore, the
court will liberally construe his filing and address the motion at this time. However, Petitioner is
cautioned that future motions must be accompanied by a separate brief in support.
Case 1:25-cv-00684-JPW-EW Document 29 Filed 02/02/26 Page 1 of 5

2
distribution of methamphetamine under 21 U.S.C. § 841. United States v. Woods,
No. 1:17-CR-110-SNLJ-1, Doc. 95 (E.D. Mo.). Petitioner is currently housed in
the Federal Correctional Institution-Allenwood (“FCI-Allenwood”) in White Deer,
Pennsylvania.
Petitioner initiated this habeas corpus action under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on
April 14, 2025 alleging that the he should be found eligible for credits under the
First Step Act (“FSA”) because the sentencing court did not make an affirmative
finding that he was an organizer, leader, manger, or supervisor of others in the
underlying offense as set forth by 18 U.S.C. § 3632(d)(4)(D)(lxvii). (Doc. 1.) On
May 9, 2025, the court entered an order serving the petition on Respondent. (Doc.
8.) Respondent filed a response to the petition on May 28, 2025. (Doc. 10.)
Petitioner filed a traverse and an amended traverse. (Docs. 14, 21.)
On October 22, 2025, the court entered a memorandum and order dismissing
the petition. (Docs. 26, 27.) In the memorandum, the court found that both parties
agreed that the PSR speaks to Petitioner’s leadership role resulting in an
enhancement under U.S.S.G. 3B1.1. (Doc. 26, p. 5.) 2 The court also stated it
reviewed the sentencing hearing transcript and found that the sentencing court
adopted the PSR. (Id.) In doing so, the court cited a document in one of
2 For ease of reference, the court uses the page numbers from the CM/ECF header.
Case 1:25-cv-00684-JPW-EW Document 29 Filed 02/02/26 Page 2 of 5

3
Petitioner’s 2009 criminal cases that was associated with the 2017 conviction.3
(Id.)
On November 10, 2025, Petitioner filed the instant motion for
reconsideration arguing that had the court reviewed the correct sentencing hearing
transcript in the 2017 case, it would not have found that the sentencing court
adopted the PSR in full. (Doc. 28.) Additionally, Petitioner reasserts the
arguments he originally raised in support of his petition. (Id.)
The court will now address the pending motion for reconsideration.
S TANDARD
Petitioner raises his motion for reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)
and 72(a).4 (Doc. 28, p. 1.)
Rule 59(e) is “a device . . . used to allege legal error,” United States v.
Fiorelli, 337 F.3d 282, 288 (3d Cir. 2003), and may only be used to correct
manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence. See
Howard Hess Dental Labs, Inc. v. Dentsply Int'l Inc., 602 F.3d 237, 251 (3d Cir.
2010). The scope of a Rule 59(e) motion is extremely limited, and it may not be
3 The sentencing hearing in No. 1:17-CR-110-SNLJ-1 addressed both the sentencing for the
conviction from the underlying criminal conduct of that case and the sentencing for supervised
release violations in two other criminal cases. See Woods, No. 1:17-CR-110-SNLJ-1, Doc. 127.
In reviewing the petition previously, the court reviewed the sentencing hearing transcripts in all
cases and cited a 2009 case instead of the 2017 case.
4 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) addresses the resolution of nondispositive matters by
Magistrate Judges. It does not set forth authority regarding a motion for reconsideration.
Case 1:25-cv-00684-JPW-EW Document 29 Filed 02/02/26 Page 3 of 5

4
used as an opportunity to relitigate the case. See Blystone v. Horn, 664 F.3d 397,
415 (3d Cir. 2011). The moving party must show one of the following in order to
prevail on a Rule 59(e) motion: (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 a clear error of law or fact or to prevent a manifest
injustice. See Max's Seafood Cafe v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999).
DISCUSSION
Petitioner alleges that the court erred by not reviewing the correct sentencing
hearing transcript and that if the correct transcript had been reviewed, there would
be a different result. (Doc. 28.) Therefore, he is alleging that there is a clear error
of fact in the court’s October 22, 2025 decision.
The court has reviewed the transcript in Woods, No. 1:17-CR-110-SNLJ-1 at
Doc. 127, and finds that the sentencing court initially adopted the PSR as written
subject to a single objection on page 3 of the transcript. Following consideration
of the single objection, the sentencing court then overruled the objection and
adopted the PSR in full on page 10 of the transcript. Additionally, the Courtroom
Minute Sheet from the sentencing proceedings states that the PSR was
adopted/accepted by the court. Id., Doc. 94. Therefore, any error by the court in
citing the incorrect sentencing hearing transcript does not prejudice Petitioner. The
conclusion remains the same: the sentencing court adopted the PSR in full. The
Case 1:25-cv-00684-JPW-EW Document 29 Filed 02/02/26 Page 4 of 5

5
parties agree that the PSR included a finding that Petitioner had a leadership role in
the underlying criminal conduct making him illegible for earned time credits under
the FSA pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3632(d)(4)(D)(lxvii).
The remaining challenges Petitioner raises in his motion for reconsideration
amount to an attempt to reassert the arguments he made in his original petition and
supporting briefing. (Doc. 28). Rule 59(e) may not be used as an opportunity to
relitigate the case. See Blystone, 664 F.3d at 415. Therefore, the court need not
address these challenges further.
CONCLUSION
For the above stated reasons, Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of the
court’s October 22, 2025 memorandum and order will be denied. The case will
remain closed.
An appropriate order follows.
s/Jennifer P. Wilson
JENNIFER P. WILSON
United States District Judge
Middle District of Pennsylvania
Dated: February 2, 2026
Case 1:25-cv-00684-JPW-EW Document 29 Filed 02/02/26 Page 5 of 5