1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 14-cr-20780 

 Hon. Matthew F. Leitman 

v. 

CURTIS SCOTT, 

 Defendant. 

_______________________________________________________________________/

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (ECF ## 406, 407) 

 On March 9, 2016, a jury convicted Defendant Curtis Scott of aiding and abetting a 

carjacking, aiding and abetting the use and/or carrying of a firearm during a crime of 

violence, and making a false statement to a federal agent. Following his conviction, Scott 

moved for a new trial pursuant to Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. (See 

ECF ## 144, 162). In that motion, Scott argued, among other things, that his trial counsel 

was ineffective for failing to move to suppress certain historical cell-phone records. Scott 

said that his attorney should have sought suppression of the records on the ground that they 

were obtained through an order issued under the Stored Communication Act, 18 U.S.C. § 

2703(d), rather than through a search warrant. 

 By written order dated May 10, 2018, the Court denied Scott’s motion for new trial 

(the “May 18 Order”). (See ECF #380.) As relevant here, the Court concluded that Scott 

could not show prejudice from his attorney’s failure to seek suppression of the records on 

the ground that they were obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The Court 
2 

explained that under the Sixth Circuit’s recent published decision in United States v. 

Pembrook, 876 F.3d 812, 822-24 (6th. Cir. 2017), even if the records had been obtained in 

violation of the Fourth Amendment, suppression of the records would not have been an 

appropriate remedy. Stated another way, the records would not have been subject to 

suppression even if Scott’s trial counsel had persuaded the Court that they were obtained 

in violation of the Fourth Amendment. 

Scott has now filed a motion for reconsideration of the May 18 Order. (See ECF ## 

406, 407.) Scott argues that based on the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Carpenter v. 

United States, --- S.Ct. ---, 2018 WL 3073916 (S.Ct. June 22, 2018), the Court should 

reconsider the portion of the May 18 Order described above. The Court DENIES the 

motion. 

Motions for reconsideration are governed by Local Rule 7.1(h). That rule provides: 

Generally, and without restricting the Court's discretion, the 

Court will not grant motions for rehearing or reconsideration 

that merely present the same issues ruled upon by the Court, 

either expressly or by reasonable implication. The movant 

must not only demonstrate a palpable defect by which the 

Court and the parties and other persons entitled to be heard on 

the motion have been misled but also show that correcting the 

defect will result in a different disposition of the case. 

E.D. Mich. Local Rule 7.1(h)(3). 

The Supreme Court’s decision in Carpenter does not undermine the Court’s ruling 

in any way. In Carpenter, the Supreme Court held that the government must obtain a 

warrant in order to obtain certain historical cell-phone records. Carpenter says nothing

about the basis on which the Court ruled against Scott – namely, that even if the records 
3 

were obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment, suppression was not the appropriate 

remedy. Indeed, Carpenter does not speak to the issue of remedy at all. Thus, Carpenter

is not inconsistent with the Court’s ruling that Scott cannot show prejudice because, under 

Pembrook, the records would not have been subject to suppression even if they had been 

obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment. 

 For these reasons, Scott has failed to persuade the Court that the May 18 Order 

contains palpable defects, and Scott has not shown that correction of any of the alleged 

defects would result in a different disposition of his motion for a new trial. Accordingly, 

Scott’s motion for reconsideration (ECF ## 406, 407) is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

/s/Matthew F. Leitman 

 MATTHEW F. LEITMAN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: July 9, 2018 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties 

and/or counsel of record on July 9, 2018, by electronic means and/or ordinary mail. 

 s/Holly A. Monda 

 Case Manager 

 (810) 341-9764