Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_18-cv-06303/USCOURTS-cand-5_18-cv-06303-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 28:2255 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)

---

Case No.: 5:15-cr-00458-EJD-1

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

BOBBY WADE,

Defendant.

Case No. 5:15-cr-00458-EJD-1 

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Re: Dkt. Nos. 165, 166

Before the Court is Defendant Bobby Wade’s Motion for Reconsideration. The Court 

DENIES Defendant’s motion for reconsideration. 

I. BACKGROUND

On October 24, 2019, the Court denied Defendant’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate, 

Remand, or Set Aside. Order Denying Motion to Vacate (“Order”) at 1, Dkt. 163. In his motion 

to vacate, Defendant argued that he was deprived effective assistance of counsel and that his 

Fourth Amendment rights were violated. Motion to Vacate Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (“2255 

Mot.”) at 1–7, 8–10, Dkt. 152. This Court held that Defendant’s Fourth Amendment arguments 

were already litigated, and that Defendant could not present new Fourth Amendment arguments in 

his 2255 Motion. Order at 2. The Court also held that Defendant failed to show that he was 

deprived effective assistance of counsel. Id.

On November 21, 2019, Defendant filed a motion for reconsideration. Movant’s Motion 

for Reconsideration Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) (“Recon Mot.”), Dkt. 165. Defendant also 

requested a forty-five-day extension to supplement his motion with a supporting memorandum of 

law and fact. Dkt. 165–1, at 1. Subsequently, on January 10, 2020, Defendant filed another

Case 5:18-cv-06303-EJD Document 3 Filed 02/13/20 Page 1 of 4
Case No.: 5:15-cr-00458-EJD-1

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

request for an additional thirty-day extension. Dkt. 166 at 1.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Reconsideration of a final judgment, order, or proceeding is appropriate if (1) at the time of 

the motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration, a material difference in fact or law exists 

from that which was presented to the Court before entry of the interlocutory order for which 

reconsideration is sought; (2) the court committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly 

unjust; or (3) if new material facts emerge or a material change of law occurs after the time of the 

interlocutory order. N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 7–9(b); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). Absent these three 

things, “a motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances.” 

Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of 

Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000)). Reconsideration is an “extraordinary remedy, to be 

used sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Id. (citation and 

internal quotation marks omitted). Improper use of Rule 59(e) includes relitigating old matters or 

raising arguments or presenting evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of 

judgment. Zimmerman v. City of Oakland, 255 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir. 2001).

III. DISCUSSION

Defendant argues that this Court committed a clear error of law and a manifest injustice

when it denied his 2255 motion. Recon Mot. at 1. Specifically, Defendant argues that (1) the 

conviction and sentencing under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) was improper pursuant to Rehaif v. United 

States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019); (2) the Court committed clear error when it rejected Defendant’s 

Fourth Amendment and relation-back claim; and (3) the Court’s enhanced sentencing under the 

United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2K2.1 was erroneous. Id. at 2–3.

First, Rehaif does not affect this case. In Rehaif, the Supreme Court held that 18 U.S.C. 

§ 922(g) requires the Government to prove that the defendant knowingly possessed a firearm and

knowingly belonged to the relevant category of persons barred from possessing a firearm. 139 S. 

Ct. at 2200. Here, the jury determined that the defendant knowingly possessed a firearm and the 

Parties stipulated to Wade being a felon, i.e. the relevant category of persons barred from 

Case 5:18-cv-06303-EJD Document 3 Filed 02/13/20 Page 2 of 4
Case No.: 5:15-cr-00458-EJD-1

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

possessing a firearm. See Dkt. 58 at 1; Dkt. 109; see also 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). Accordingly, 

Rehaif has no impact on Defendant’s case and thus is irrelevant for purposes of Defendant’s 

motion to reconsider.

Second, as established in this Court’s original order, Defendant is foreclosed from 

relitigating his Fourth Amendment claims. Order at 8. In his motion for reconsideration, 

Defendant argues that this Court committed a “clear error of law” because the Court did not 

construe Defendant’s arguments to raise the strongest claim for relief. Recon Mot. at 2. As 

support, Defendant cites Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972). While it is true that pro se 

pleadings are held to a “less stringent standard” than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers, pro se 

pleadings are not excused from complying with legal standards. See Haines, 404 U.S. at 520. 

Haines is inapposite to this case. Here, unlike Haines, the Court can say beyond doubt that 

Defendant can prove no set of facts that would entitle him to relief. See Order at 8 (discussing 

how ample probable cause supported warrant underlying search of Defendant’s cell phone). 

Defendant thus has not shown that the Court committed “clear error of law” and the Court rejects 

Defendant’s attempt to relitigate his Fourth Amendment claim. See Zimmerman, 255 F.3d at 740.

Third, Defendant argues that this Court should reexamine his sentence. Recon Mot. at 2. 

He cites Mathis v. United States, 391 U.S. 1 (1968) and Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 

(2013) as support. Id. at 2. This is the first time Defendant makes this argument. See generally 

2255 Mot. (making a Fourth Amendment and ineffective assistance of counsel argument). The 

Court did not address this argument in its Order. See generally Order (holding that Defendant 

failed to establish a Fourth Amendment violation and failed to show he was deprived effective 

assistance of counsel). Hence, for Defendant to present this new argument, he must show that a

material change in fact or law arose after the Court filed its Order. See N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 7–9(b). 

Defendant has not done this. Mathis and Descamps existed long before the Court issued its Order

and Defendant provides no details indicating a change in fact. Accordingly, the Court rejects 

Defendant’s resentencing argument. 

Finally, Defendant maintains that the Court committed a clear error of law by holding that his 

Case 5:18-cv-06303-EJD Document 3 Filed 02/13/20 Page 3 of 4
Case No.: 5:15-cr-00458-EJD-1

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

supplement did not relate back to his Section 2255 Motion. Recon Mot. at 3. The Court 

disagrees. Defendant’s Section 2255 motion and his subsequent supplement were based on 

different facts and legal theories. See Order at 7 (holding that supplement was different in both 

“time and form”). Accordingly, no error of law was made and the Court rejects Defendant’s 

relation-back argument.

IV. CONCLUSION

Defendant has not met the standard for reconsideration. Therefore, Defendant’s Motion 

for Reconsideration is DENIED.

1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 13, 2020

______________________________________

EDWARD J. DAVILA

United States District Judge

1 Defendant’s requests for extra time to submit a supporting memorandum of law are thus also 

DENIED. See Dkt. Nos. 165–1, 166.

Case 5:18-cv-06303-EJD Document 3 Filed 02/13/20 Page 4 of 4