CONCLUSION

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

Samuel Der-Yeghiayan 7 ss v

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.



Minate Order Form (0697)

United States District Court, Northern District of Mlinois

Namest Ani sees | Samuel Der-Yeghiayan | Stig nie Oe
CASE NUMBER 02 C 1660 DATE 11/3/2004

CASE James Leo Edwards (A-70905) vs. Briley

TITLE

[In the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, ¢.g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state bricfly the nature
MOTION: of the motion being presented.)
DOCKET ENTRY:
(1) Oo Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]
(2) a Brief in support of motion due
(3) a Answer brief to motion due___. Reply to answer brief due,
(4) oO Ruling/Hearingon__setfor____—at
(5) a Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on__—ssetfor___—_ at.
(6) a Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on__setfor__—sat_
(7) oO Trial[set for/re-set for]on_—_at
(8) Qo [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continuedto__at
(9) o This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to)
OOFRCP4(m) ClLocal Rule 41.1 OFRCP41(a(1) CO FRCP41(a)(2).

ao) [Other docket entry] For the reasons stated in the attached memorandum opinion, petitioner’s

motion for reconsideration is denied. Enter Memorandum Opinion.

(il) @ (For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]
No notices required, advised in open court.
No notices required. number of notions
Notices mailed by judge's staff. Nov 0 4 2004
Notified counsel by telephone. dae.
W | Docketing to mail notices.
Mail AO 450 form. , ocketing df jntits by
Copy to judge/magistrate judge. UNDI LOMLSIO “S'n y)
Wan _ date mailed notice.
we depuys O33 NY A AON AOD
initials
. " Daté/tiingtreceived in
~ ventrat'Ctbrk's Office snag deputy nila



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

EASTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ex rel. )
JAMES LEO EDWARDS, )
)
Petitioner, ) UE
) Consolidated Case Ni Noy 04 24 a
v. ) 02 C1659 ang. 02 C 1660 04
)
KENNETH R. BRILEY, )
)
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

jr



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...."In 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