Not for Publication 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

REGINALD WARE, 

Defendant. 

Crim. No. 11-224 

OPINION & ORDER 

 

John Michael Vazquez, U.S.D.J. 

Currently pending before the Court is Defendant’s second motion for reconsideration. D.E. 

56. The Government filed opposition, D.E. 58, to which Defendant replied, D.E. 60. And it 

appearing as follows: 

1. On November 12, 2020, the Court issued an Opinion and Order which denied 

Defendant’s motion to modify his sentence and for immediate release. D.E. 45, 46; 

2. Thereafter Defendant filed numerous letters, D.E. 48, 49, 50, 51, which the Court 

construed as a motion for reconsideration. As a result, the Court ordered the 

Government to file a response to the letters, D.E.53, which the Government did, D.E. 

54. The Court reconsidered its initial opinion (because Defendant had since contracted 

COVID-19 and because the facility where he is housed had experienced a surge in 

positive cases) but denied Defendant’s motion to modify his sentence and for 

immediate release. D.E. 55; 

3. In the District of New Jersey, motions for reconsideration can be made pursuant to 

Local Civil Rule 7.1(i). The rule applies to motions for reconsideration in criminal 

cases pursuant to Local Criminal Rule 1.1 Rule 7.1(i) provides that such motions must 

be made within fourteen days of the entry of an order. Substantively, a motion for 

reconsideration is viable when one of three scenarios is present: (1) an intervening 

change in the controlling law, (2) the availability of new evidence not previously 

available, or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice. 

Carmichael v. Everson, No. 03-4787, 2004 WL 1587894, at *1 (D.N.J. May 21, 2004) 

(citations omitted). Granting a motion for reconsideration is an “extraordinary 

remedy,” to be granted “sparingly.” NL Indus., Inc. v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., 935 

Case 2:11-cr-00224-JMV Document 61 Filed 04/15/21 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 266
2 

F. Supp. 513, 516 (D.N.J. 1996) (citations omitted). A motion for reconsideration also 

does not entitle a party to a second bite at the apple. Therefore, a motion for 

reconsideration is inappropriate when a party merely disagrees with a court’s ruling or 

when a party simply wishes to re-argue its original motion. Sch. Specialty, Inc. v. 

Ferrentino, No. 14-4507, 2015 WL 4602995, *2-3 (D.N.J. July 30, 2015); see also

Florham Park Chevron, Inc. v. Chevron U.S.A., 680 F. Supp. 159, 162 (D.N.J. 1988). 

Moreover, a motion for reconsideration is not an opportunity to raise matters that could 

have been raised before the original decision was reached. Bowers v. NCAA, 130 F. 

Supp. 2d 610, 613 (D.N.J. 2001); and 

4. In his current motion for reconsideration, Defendant does not meet any of the three 

categories necessary for a motion for reconsideration under Rule 7.1(i). Instead, he 

rehashes the same arguments made in his original motion and his first motion for 

reconsideration. 

For the foregoing reasons, and for good cause shown, 

It is on this 15th days of April 2021 hereby 

ORDERED that Defendant’s second motion for reconsideration D.E. 56, is DENIED; and 

it is further 

ORDERED that the Clerk’s Office shall mail a copy of this Opinion and Order to 

Defendant by regular mail. 

__________________________ 

John Michael Vazquez, U.S.D.J. 

Case 2:11-cr-00224-JMV Document 61 Filed 04/15/21 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 267