1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MARC RAMIREZ, :

:

Petitioner :

:

v. : CIVIL NO. 4:CV-05-2688

:

TROY WILLIAMSON, : (Judge McClure) 

:

Respondent :

ORDER

April 4, 2006

Background

Marc Ramirez (“Petitioner”), an inmate presently confined at the Allenwood

Low Security Correctional Institution, White Deer, Pennsylvania (“LSCI-Allenwood”),

filed this pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

Named as Respondent is LSCI-Allenwood Warden Troy Williamson. 

Petitioner was convicted of drug related offenses following a 1990 trial in the

United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. His petition argued

that he was entitled to federal habeas corpus relief because sentence enhancements

which were imposed against him were based on factors which were not adjudicated

by the jury. The petition referenced the United States Supreme Court’s decisions in

Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), Blakely v. Washington, 124 S. Ct.

Case 4:05-cv-02688-JFM-JVW Document 9 Filed 04/04/06 Page 1 of 4
2

2531 (2004), and United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). Ramirez sought his

immediate release and asked that his sentence be vacated and remanded for further

proceedings.

By Memorandum and Order dated January 25, 2006, Ramirez’s petition was 

dismissed without prejudice on the basis that his claims were not properly raised under

§ 2241. The decision concluded that Petitioner had not shown that his remedy under

28 U.S.C. § 22545 was inadequate or ineffective because his claims were not based on

any newly discovered evidence and he had not established that Apprendi, Booker and

Blakely were retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review. It was also noted

that Ramirez’s present claims, were not premised on any intervening change in

substantive law that would negate the criminal nature of his conduct with respect to his

federal conviction, had nothing to do with the actual question of his guilt and there

were no facts presented to show that the denial of the petition would raise serious

constitutional issues.

Presently pending is the Petitioner’s motion seeking reconsideration of the

summary dismissal of his action. See Record document no. 7. The motion is ripe for

consideration.

Discussion

The Petitioner’s motion requests that this Court reconsider its summary

dismissal of his habeas corpus petition. A motion for reconsideration is a device of

limited utility. It may be used only to seek remediation of manifest errors of law or

fact or to present newly discovered precedent or evidence which, if discovered

Case 4:05-cv-02688-JFM-JVW Document 9 Filed 04/04/06 Page 2 of 4
3

previously, might have affected the court's decision. Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779

F.2d 906 (3d Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1171 (1986). It has also been held

that a motion for reconsideration is appropriate in instances such as where the court

has " . . . misunderstood a party, or has made a decision outside the adversarial issues

presented to the court by parties, or has made an error not of reasoning, but of

apprehension." See Rohrbach v. AT & T Nassau Metals Corp., 902 F. Supp. 523,

527 (M.D. Pa. 1995), vacated in part on other grounds on reconsideration, 915 F.

Supp. 712 (M.D. Pa. 1996) (quoting Above the Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannan Roofing,

Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D. Va. 1983). "Because federal courts have a strong

interest in the finality of judgments, motions for reconsideration should be granted

sparingly." Continental Casualty Co. v. Diversified Indus., Inc., 884 F. Supp. 937,

943 (E.D. Pa. 1995). 

Petitioner’s motion seeks relief on the basis that he has had no reasonable

opportunity to obtain judicial review of his present claims and there has been no

Supreme Court ruling that Apprendi, Blakely and Booker cannot be applied

retroactively. Ramirez’s reconsideration motion has failed to establish the presence of

any errors of law or fact and does not set forth any newly discovered evidence or

precedent which would undermine the prior conclusion of this Court. As a result, the

Petitioner’s request for reconsideration will be denied. Consequently,

Case 4:05-cv-02688-JFM-JVW Document 9 Filed 04/04/06 Page 3 of 4
4

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

Petitioner’s motion (Record document no. 7) seeking reconsideration

of the Court’s January 25, 2006 Memorandum and Order is DENIED.

 s/ James F. McClure, Jr. 

 JAMES F. McCLURE, JR.

United States District Judge 

Case 4:05-cv-02688-JFM-JVW Document 9 Filed 04/04/06 Page 4 of 4