CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, we deny Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.

Som 2D, ZK —

Samuel Der-Yeghiayann “% “
United States District Court Judge

Dated: November 3, 2004



14, 2004, by operation of the "mailbox rule", we treat the motion as filed on April
12, 2004, the date when Petitioner delivered it to the proper prison authorities for
mailing. See Edwards v. U.S., 266 F.3d 756, 758 (7th Cir. 2001)(holding that the
“mailbox rule applies to motions filed pursuant to Rule 59(e).”). Accordingly, for
purposes of our review, Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration will be considered
timely and construed under the standard set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e).

In his motion for reconsideration, Petitioner has simply revisited each of his
habeas claims and attempted to reargue the merits of those claims. Petitioner has
failed to present any “newly discovered evidence” in support of his motion, nor has
Petitioner established that a “manifest error of law” occurred. LB Credit Corp., 49
F.3d at 1267. Additionally, we note that although Petitioner has attempted to
rephrase and add certain habeas claim arguments within his motion for
reconsideration, those arguments “should have been presented to the district court
prior to the judgment.” Moro, 91 F.3d at 876(citing LB Credit Corp., 49 F.3d at
1267). Inasmuch as Petitioner’s motion presents no newly discovered evidence and
merely reargues the habeas claims that we have already reviewed, we find that
Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration is without merit. Therefore, Petitioner’s

motion for reconsideration is denied.



‘Minute Order Form (06/97)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Judge i Sitting Judge if Other
or Magistrate Judge Samuel Det-Yeghiayan than Assigned Judge
CASE NUMBER 02 C 1659 DATE 11/3/2004
CASE James Leo Edwards (A-70905) vs. Briley
TITLE
[In the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, e.g,, plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature
MOTION: of the motion being presented.)
DOCKET ENTRY:
qd) a Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]
(2) Oo Brief in support of motion due
(3) oO Answer brief to motion duc. . Reply to answer brief due.
() ia) Ruling/Hearing on __set for at
(5) im 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
”) i) Trial[set for/re-set for] on at
(8) o (Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to at
(9) im) This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]
CUFRCP4(m) Local Rule 41.1. ChFRCP41(a)(1) © FRCP41(a)(2).
qo [Other docket entry) For the reasons stated in the attached memorandum opinion, petitioner’s
motion for reconsideration is denied. Enter Memorandum Opinion.
(il) ff [For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]
No notices required, advised in open court.
No notices required. umber of notioss
Notices mailed by judge’s staff.
Notified counsel by telephone. NOV 04a 004
wv | Docketing to mail notices.
Mail AO 450 form, eG BIAB sea
Copy to judge/magistrate judge. .
date mailed notice
courtroom
MW deputy’s nt wy
initials —+ ~
Date/time received in
central Clerk's Office “~-! % railing deputy initials



DOCKETED

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NOV 04 2004
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ex rel.
JAMES LEO EDWARDS,

Petitioner,
Consolidated Case Nos.

v. 02 C 1659 and 02 C 1660

KENNETH R. BRILEY,

wwe SSS SS SS

Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION
SAMUEL DER-YEGHIAYAN, District Judge
This matter is before the court on Petitioner James Edwards’ (“Petitioner”)

motion for reconsideration. For the reasons stated below, we deny Petitioner’s

motion for reconsideration.

BACKGROUND

Petitioner initially filed two separate petitions for writ ofhabeas corpus in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. U.S. ex rel.
Edwards v. Briley, (N.D. Ill. 2002)(No. 02 C 1659); U.S. ex rel. Edwards v. Briley,

(N.D. Ill. 2002)(No. 02 C 1660). On March 30, 2004, in a memorandum opinion, we

a/



denied Petitioner’s petitions for writ of habeas corpus. U.S. ex rel. Edwards v.

Briley, 2004 WL 723837 (N.D. Ill. 2004).

LEGAL STANDARD

Rule 59(e) permits parties to file, within ten days of the entry of a judgment, a
motion to alter or amend the judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). Rule 59(e) motions do
not give a party the opportunity to rehash old arguments or to present new arguments
"that could and should have been presented to the district court prior to the
judgment." Moro v. Shell Oil Co., 91 F.3d 872, 876 (7th Cir.1996)(citingLB Credit
Corp. v. Resolution Trust Corp., 49 F.3d 1263, 1267 (7th Cir.1995)). Rather, a Rule
59(e) motion "must clearly establish either a manifest error of law or fact or must
present newly discovered evidence" in order to be successful. LB Credit Corp., 49
F.3d at 1267 (quoting Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Meyer, 781 F.2d 1260, 1268
(7th Cir.1986)). The decision of whether to grant or deny a Rule 59(e) motion "is
entrusted to the sound judgment of the district court...."Jn re Prince, 85 F.3d 314,

324 (7th Cir.1996).

DISCUSSION
This court denied Petitioner’s petitions for writ ofhabeas corpus on March

30, 2004. Although Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was not filed until April