Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): On July 13, 2009, Plaintiff filed a Motion For Reconsideration (“Pl.Mot.”) of the June 30, 2009 Memorandum Opinion and Final Order in United Surety and Indemnity Co. v. United States, 87 Fed.Cl. 580 (2009). For the reasons discussed herein, Plaintiffs Motion For Reconsideration is denied. I. STANDARD OF REVIEW FOR MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION, PURSUANT TO RCFC 59. A motion for reconsideration must be supported “by a showing of extraordinary circumstances which justify relief.” Caldwell v. United States, 391 F.3d 1226, 1235 (Fed.Cir.2004) (quoting Fru-Con Constr. Corp. v. United States, 44 Fed.Cl. 298, 300 (1999)). The decision to grant or deny a motion for reconsideration lies within the discretion of the court. Yuba Natural Res., Inc. v. United States, 904 F.2d 1577, 1583 (Fed.Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>). A movant cannot prevail by “merely 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the weight accorded to evidence lies largely within the agencys discretion (B) holding that the decision as to the weight to be afforded to documentary evidence  lies largely within the discretion of the ij (C) holding that the decision whether to grant reconsideration lies largely within the discretion of the trial court (D) holding that the weight accorded to evidence lies largely within the discretion of the agency (E) holding that the weight afforded to the evidence lies largely within the agencys discretion
Output (English): holding that the weight accorded to evidence lies largely within the discretion of the agency