UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 08-cr-20497 

v Honorable Thomas L. Ludington 

ROBERT NOEL, 

 

 Defendant. 

__________________________________________/ 

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

On February 12, 2014, Defendant Robert Noel filed a pro se motion to vacate his 

sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. ECF No. 187. Noel listed fifteen grounds of error supporting 

the vacatur of his conviction. Id. While the motion itself was lengthy, at thirty-six pages with 

attachments, it did not include a brief in support of his grounds for relief. On the same day, 

however, Noel filed a motion for an extension of time to file a brief in support of his § 2255 

motion. ECF No. 189. He requested 120 days to file his brief. Id. 

Noel’s motions were referred to Magistrate Judge Charles E. Binder for consideration. 

ECF No. 190. On February 20, 2014, Magistrate Judge Binder granted in part and denied in part 

Noel’s motion for an extension. ECF No. 192. Noel was given until April 7, 2014 to file his 

brief. Id. On March 31, however, Noel sought another extension, this time for thirty days. ECF 

No. 193. This motion was also referred and Magistrate Judge Binder granted the motion in part, 

giving Noel until April 30, 2014, to file his brief. ECF No. 194. Noel timely filed his 156 page 

brief, and its accompanying exhibits, in support of his § 2255 motion with the Court on April 30, 

2014. ECF Nos. 196 & 197. Noel’s brief and its accompanying exhibits were docketed on May 

2, 2014. Id. 

1:08-cr-20497-TLL-PTM Doc # 242 Filed 03/14/17 Pg 1 of 5 Pg ID 2721
- 2 - 

Since that time, the docket was inundated with motions by Noel related to his § 2255 

petition. See ECF Nos. 198, 199, 202, 203, 205, & 208. The motions were also referred to 

Magistrate Judge Patricia T. Morris.1 See ECF Nos. 200, 204, 206, & 213. 

On September 5, 2014, Judge Morris issued a report and recommendation which denied 

all of Noel’s pending motions. ECF No. 214. On January 14, 2015, this Court rejected that report 

and recommendation because the report and recommendation needed to address a response the 

government had been directed to file and because several arguments made in Noel’s supporting 

brief also needed to be addressed. The case was referred to the Magistrate Judge for further 

consideration. 

Noel subsequently filed a two motions which referenced Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. 

Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238 (1944). ECF No. 217, 230. On May 20, 2015, Judge Morris 

issued a second report and recommendation. In that report, Judge Morris concluded that the 

Government’s response to Noel’s motion to vacate had now been considered, but the report did 

not refer to Noel’s supplementary brief or the factual assertions that Noel makes in that brief. On 

October 13, 2016, the Court issued an opinion and order which rejected Judge Morris’s report 

and recommendation for failing to consider the supplementary brief and factual assertions as 

directed. The Court then conducted a de novo review of Noel’s claims and motions and 

concluded they were meritless. Now, Noel has filed a motion “for findings and conclusions / and 

objections.” ECF No. 239. It will be denied. 

I. 

 Noel styles his motion as seeking a statement of “findings and conclusions” pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a)(1). That rule applies to actions “tried on the facts without 

                                                             1

 Magistrate Judge Morris was appointed and assumed responsibility for the case on May 16, 2014. 

1:08-cr-20497-TLL-PTM Doc # 242 Filed 03/14/17 Pg 2 of 5 Pg ID 2722
- 3 - 

a jury or an advisory jury” (a bench trial). Id. It is thus not applicable to Noel’s motions for postconviction relief. Rather, Noel’s current motion is, in effect, a motion for reconsideration of the 

Court’s opinion. 

Pursuant to Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule 7.1(h), a party can file a motion for 

reconsideration of a previous order, but must do so within fourteen days. A motion for 

reconsideration will be granted if the moving party shows: “(1) a palpable defect, (2) the defect 

misled the court and the parties, and (3) that correcting the defect will result in a different 

disposition of the case.” Michigan Dept. of Treasury v. Michalec, 181 F. Supp. 2d 731, 733-34 

(E.D. Mich. 2002) (quoting E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(g)(3)). A “palpable defect” is “obvious, clear, 

unmistakable, manifest, or plain.” Id. at 734 (citing Marketing Displays, Inc. v. Traffix Devices, 

Inc., 971 F. Supp. 2d 262, 278 (E.D. Mich. 1997). “[T]he Court will not grant motions for 

rehearing or reconsideration that merely present the same issues ruled upon by the Court, either 

expressly or by reasonable implication.” E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(h)(3). See also Bowens v. Terris, 

No. 2:15-CV-10203, 2015 WL 3441531, at *1 (E.D. Mich. May 28, 2015). 

II. 

Noel’s 31 page motion makes a variety of arguments, but none that have not already been 

directly presented and addressed by the Court’s prior order. He first objects to the Court’s 

articulation of his claims. On pages 4 through 6 of his motion, he lists his claims. The Court has 

reviewed that explanation of his claims and finds no material differences between that list and 

the Court’s list on pages 6–7 of the October 13, 2016, order. Noel also argues that the Court 

improperly construed his motions regarding the Hazel-Atlas decision as motions for relief under 

§ 2255. Regardless of how those motions are construed, the Court addressed the relevance of the 

Hazel-Atlas decision in its October 13, 2016, order and found that Noel was not entitled to relief. 

1:08-cr-20497-TLL-PTM Doc # 242 Filed 03/14/17 Pg 3 of 5 Pg ID 2723
- 4 - 

Noel also objects to the manner in which his legal mail has been sent to him. But Noel received 

the mail and has not been prejudiced by any delay that may have occurred. 

 Finally, Noel reiterates arguments regarding each of his claims for relief. The Court has 

reviewed those arguments and factual assertions. The Court can find no new fact or legal basis 

for relief which was not directly considered in the October 13, 2016, order. Certainly, Noel has 

not provided any new information which would change the legal analysis in the Court’s opinion. 

Rather, Noel is attempting for the most part to relitigate claims which have been exhaustively 

briefed, argued, and addressed throughout the course of Noel’s prosecution and conviction. Noel 

clearly believes that his trial and appellate counsel made errors in their representation of him. 

But, as explained in the Court’s October 13, 2016, order, the Sixth Amendment does not entitle 

Noel to perfect representation. Here, Noel seems to be faulting his counsel primarily for not 

prevailing on certain arguments. That lack of success is not constitutionally-cognizable 

prejudice. 

 Noel had a right to a fair trial, an opportunity to appeal, and an opportunity to attack his 

conviction via habeas petitions. He received all three of those entitlements. At each stage, Noel’s 

attacks on the propriety and constitutionality of his conviction have been rejected. Nevertheless, 

Noel continues to reassert those arguments. Noel may be entitled to challenge his conviction, but 

he is not entitled to continually assert the same arguments in post-conviction proceedings. Noel 

was fairly and constitutionally convicted. His appeal and habeas petitions have been rejected as 

meritless. None of the arguments he now raises cast any doubt on that outcome. 

 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Noel’s motion for findings and conclusions, ECF No. 

239, is DENIED. 

1:08-cr-20497-TLL-PTM Doc # 242 Filed 03/14/17 Pg 4 of 5 Pg ID 2724
- 5 - 

Dated: March 14, 2017 s/Thomas L. Ludington 

 THOMAS L. LUDINGTON 

 United States District Judge 

 

 

PROOF OF SERVICE 

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served 

upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first 

class U.S. mail on March 14, 2017. 

 s/Michael A. Sian 

 MICHAEL A. SIAN, Case Manager 

1:08-cr-20497-TLL-PTM Doc # 242 Filed 03/14/17 Pg 5 of 5 Pg ID 2725