1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Eli Sloan,

Defendant.

No. CR-15-08232-001-PCT-DLR

ORDER 

Before the Court is Defendant’s pro se Emergency Motion for Compassionate 

Release and Sentence Reduction Modification. (Doc. 284.) Because this motion requests 

the same relief denied on July 13, 2020 (Doc. 267), the Court will treat Defendant’s motion 

as a pro se motion to reconsider. For the reasons set forth herein, Defendant’s motion is

denied. 

So long as the Court retains jurisdiction, it may, in its discretion, reconsider its 

rulings. That discretion should ordinarily be exercised when the judge is convinced that 

the ruling was wrong and that rescinding it would not cause undue harm to the parties. See

U.S. v. Smith, 389 F.3d 944, 949 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing Avitia v. Metropolitan Club of 

Chicago, Inc., 49 F.3d 1219, 1227 (7th Cir. 1995)). Thus, motions for reconsideration 

should be granted only in rare circumstances. Defenders of Wildlife v. Browner, 909 F. 

Supp. 1342, 1351 (D. Ariz. 1995). “Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) 

is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial 

Case 3:15-cr-08232-DLR Document 288 Filed 01/25/21 Page 1 of 2
- 2 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” 

Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993) 

(citation omitted). Such motions should not be used for the purpose of asking a court “to 

rethink what the court had already thought through—rightly or wrongly.” Defenders of 

Wildlife, 909 F. Supp. at 1351 (quoting Above the Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannon Roofing, Inc., 

99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D. Va. 1983)). 

Here, Defendant’s motion points to no newly discovered evidence, no clear error, 

and no intervening change in the law. The Court denied Defendant’s original Motion for 

Early Release (Doc. 142) because he had not asserted extraordinary and compelling reasons 

for early release recognized by the Sentencing Commission and because the Court 

determined that he is a danger to any other person or to the community. The motion 

presents no evidence that compels the Court to find that the its rationale for denying his 

original motion has changed. Defendant’s request for reconsideration does not assert any 

new circumstances that fall into the Sentencing Commission’s criteria for compassionate 

release. And, the Court notes as it did in the original order (Doc. 285 at 9), that even if 

Defendant had presented evidence proving extraordinary and compelling reasons for 

compassionate release, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g) and § 1B1.13, the Court cannot 

reduce Defendant’s sentence because he is a danger to the safety of any other person or the 

community. 

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s pro se Emergency Motion for Compassionate 

Release and Sentence Reduction Modification (Doc. 284) is DENIED. 

Dated this 25th day of January, 2021.

Douglas L. Rayes

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cr-08232-DLR Document 288 Filed 01/25/21 Page 2 of 2