IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

MARJORIE DIEHL-ARMSTRONG

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:07-cr-26

1:13-cv-136

MEMORANDUM ORDER

On December 28, 2015, the Court entered a Memorandum Opinion and Order denying 

the § 2255 motion filed pro se by Defendant, Marjorie Diehl Armstrong. (ECF No. 326). 

Presently before the Court is Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration and Recusal (ECF No. 

327), which is dated January 12, 2016, and which was received and filed by the Clerk’s Office 

on January 19, 2016.1 No response has been filed by the Government; nor is one necessary. 

The purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to “correct manifest errors of law or fact 

or to present newly discovered evidence.” Max’s Seafood Cafe ex-rel Lou—Ann, Inc. v. 

Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999) (citing Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 

(3d Cir. 1985)). A district court should exercise its discretion to alter or amend its judgment only 

if the movant demonstrates: (1) a change in the controlling law; (2) a clear error of law or fact or 

to prevent manifest injustice; or (3) availability of new evidence not available when the judgment 

was granted. Id. 

Defendant has not established any of those things. Instead, she merely takes issue with 

this Court’s reasoning and legal analysis, pointing out arguments or issues that she thinks this 

 

1. Defendant has also filed a Notice of Appeal (ECF No. 28), which is dated January 12, 2016 and which the 

Clerk’s Office received and filed January 20, 2016. Ordinarily, the filing of a Notice of Appeal divests the district 

court of jurisdiction over a case. See Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982) (per 

curiam). Under certain circumstances, however, the filing of a notice of appeal of a final judgment does not 

automatically strip the district court of jurisdiction to alter that judgment. One such circumstance is when a motion 

for reconsideration is filed under Rule 59(e). See Fed. R. App. P. 4(A)(4)(B)(i). Accordingly, this Court retains 

jurisdiction over this case solely for the purpose of deciding the pending motion. 

Case 1:07-cr-00026-DWA Document 329 Filed 01/25/16 Page 1 of 2
2

Court failed to adequately address in its Memorandum Opinion. However, “a motion for 

reconsideration is not properly grounded in a request for a district court to rethink a decision it 

has already made, rightly or wrongly.” Williams v. City of Pittsburgh, 32 F. Supp. 2d 236, 238 

(W.D. Pa. 1998). Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED.

Defendant’s Motion for Recusal is likewise DENIED, for she has not even raised a colorable 

claim that the undersigned’s “impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” 28 U.S.C. § 455(a).

Furthermore, no certificate of appealability shall issue because Defendant has not made a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.2See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). 

It is SO ORDERED, this 25th day of January, 2016.

BY THE COURT:

s/Terrence F. McVerry 

Senior United States District Judge

cc: Marjorie Diehl Armstrong 

08916-068 

FMC Carswell 

P.O. Box 27137 

Fort Worth, TX 76127 

(via First Class U.S. mail)

Marshall J. Piccinini

Email: marshall.piccinini@usdoj.gov

(via CM/ECF)

 

2. Defendant should note that she may not appeal this Court’s order denying her § 2255 

motion unless a certificate of appealability is issued. Since this Court has declined to issue a 

certificate of appealability, she will need to request and receive one from the Third Circuit Court 

of Appeals. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1).

Case 1:07-cr-00026-DWA Document 329 Filed 01/25/16 Page 2 of 2