Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-00578/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-00578-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 28:2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentence

---

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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Sean Christopher Steward,

Movant/Defendant, 

v. 

USA, 

Respondent/Plaintiff.

No. CV-15-00578-PHX-JAT

 CR-11-126-PHX-JAT 

ORDER 

 On March 30, 2015, Movant filed a motion to vacate, set aside or correct sentence. 

On April 19, 2016, this Court denied that motion and entered judgment accordingly. This 

Court also denied a certificate of appealability. Movant appealed. On November 22, 

2016, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied a certificate of appealability. 

 On January 9, 2017, Movant filed a motion for reconsideration of this Court’s 

April 19, 2016 decision. By local rule, motions for reconsideration are due within 14 

days of the order they seek to have reconsidered. LR Civ. 7.2(g)(2). If this Court 

construed this filing as a motion to alter or amend the judgment, any such motion was 

due within 28 days of the judgment. Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 59(e). Under either authority, 

Movant’s motion is untimely and is denied as such. 

 Finally, if Movant intended this motion to be a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 

motion, it fails because Movant has not made any of the required showings under Rule 

60. See Jordan v. Ryan, CV-14-0747-PHX-JAT (D. Ariz. July 8, 2016). 

 Based on the foregoing, 

Case 2:15-cv-00578-JAT Document 18 Filed 01/27/17 Page 1 of 2
- 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 

IT IS ORDERED that the motion for reconsideration (Doc. 17) is denied. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that to the extent a ruling on a certificate of 

appealability might be required,1

 a certificate of appealability is denied. 

 Dated this 27th day of January, 2017. 

 

1 See United States v. Winkles, 795 F.3d 1134, 1142 (9th Cir. 2015) (certificate of 

appealability is required to appeal the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion arising out of the 

denial of a section 2255 motion). 

Case 2:15-cv-00578-JAT Document 18 Filed 01/27/17 Page 2 of 2