Minute Onee Form 206197)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

No notices required.

Y | Notices mailed by judge’s staff.

Notified counsel by telephone.

Docketing to mail notices.

Mail AO 450 form.

Copy to judge/magistrate judge.

courtroom
SN deputy’s
initials

Name of Assigned Judge i Sitting Judge if Other
or Magistrate Judge Milton I. Shadur than Assigned Judge
CASE NUMBER 01 C 8330 DATE 11/26/2001
CASE USA vs. Juan Perez,
TITLE
{in the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, e.¢., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintifY, and (b) state briefly the nature
MOTION: of the motion being presented.]
DOCKET ENTRY:
qd) Oo Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]
(2) oO Brief in support of motion due
(3) oO Answer brief to motion due _. Reply to answer brief due _
(4) a Ruling/Hearing on set for
(5) Oo Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on___set for at
(6) Oo Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on__set for at .
ie) im Trial[set for/re-set for]on____at
(8) Qo [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to at
(9) 0 This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]
CIFRCP4(m) OGeneral Rule21  CIFRCP41(a)(1)  O FRCP41(a\(2).
(10) Ml [Other docketentry]_ Enter Memorandum Order. Perez’ motion for reconsideration is denied, (4-1)
(1) [For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]
No notices required, advised in open court.

umber of notices

NOVZ 7 2001

dateldocketed

fins doshas nifals

tv26r2001

date mailed notice

SN

Date/time received in
central Clerk’s Office

sailing deputy initials



kates

a

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

(98 CR 399-3)

)
)
)
)

v. ) No. 01 C 8330
: )
JUAN PEREZ, #10123-424, )
)
)

Defendant .

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Following the issuance of this Court's November 2, 2001
memorandum opinion and order (“Opinion”) denying the 28 U.S.c.
§2255 (“Section 2255”) motion filed by Juan Perez (“Perez”) to
challenge the conviction on which he is now serving a 200-month

sentence, Perez has filed a “Motion for Reconsideration from

Final Judgment of a 28 U.S.C. §2255 Petition.” For the reasons
briefly stated here, that motion for reconsideration is also
denied.

It could well suffice for such denial to say that Perez has
really done nothing more than to repeat the same arguments that
he made in his original Section 2255 motion and that this Court

found wanting in the Opinion. Such disagreement with a court's

ruling for the same reasons that were advanced the first time
around is not a proper basis for seeking reconsideration. That

is the teaching that was so well articulated in Above the Belt

inc. v. Mel Bohannan Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D. Va.

1983) and that has been confirmed many times over by courts

—


everywhere, including this Court and (more importantly) our Court
of Appeals.

But the current motion is wanting not just on that
procedural ground, but also because it too is substantively
mistaken on the merits for the very reasons that the Opinion set
out. dust a few words should be added because Perez mistakenly
believes that this Court has not paid sufficient heed to the
multitude of cases that he has cited and quoted, both in his
original motion and in the current one. What Perez fails to

recognize is that it is not enough to quote past decisions

accurately if those quotations (and the decisions themselves)

simply do not apply to the case at hand, and that is the
situation here. That is why there is no good purpose to be

served by going through the mass of Perez' inapropos references

to authorities.

As stated in the Opinion and as confirmed in this follow-up,
Perez has not identified any constitutional defect in his

conviction. Accordingly his motion for reconsideration is

Le lh. Git.

Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge

denied.

Date: November 26, 2001