Source: http://mi.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180403_0001148.EMI.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-01-20 05:16:36
Document Index: 728261306

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1958', '§ 2255', '§2255', '§2255', '§2255', '§ 2255', '§2255', '§2255', '§2255', '§2255']

ROY CHRISTOPHER WEST, Defendant/Petitioner.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S: MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION OF (1) MOTION TO VACATE SENTENCE [DOC. # 925], (2) MOTION FOR DISCOVERY [DOC. # 926], (3) AND MOTION FOR LEAVE [DOC. # 927]
On April 15, 2011, a jury convicted Roy West (“West”) of conspiracy to use interstate facilities in the commission of a murder for hire, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1958. West received a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed his conviction; his petition for writ of certiorari was denied.
Subsequently, West filed a pro se motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence. While his §2255 motion was pending, West filed a motion for leave pursuant to Rule 15 to file a pre-judgment amendment to the pending §2255 Motion based on newly discovered evidence of perjury. West also filed a motion for discovery, pursuant to Rule 6 of the Rules Governing §2255 Proceedings, seeking trial and appellate counsels' personal notes, the pretrial investigator's notes, and medical records relating to Leonard Day's (“Day”) death. The Court denied all three motions.
West now moves for the Court to reconsider its denial of each of his motions pursuant to Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule 7.1(h)(3).
West fails to demonstrate a palpable defect, the correction of which will result in a different disposition of his motions. These motions for reconsideration are denied.
In November 2005, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) began wiretapping cellular phone conversations of several individuals, including West (also known as “Buck”) as part of a drug investigation. From listening to various phone conversations between the subjects, the FBI learned that Day, who also was known as “Buck, ” had stolen about $100, 000 in cash, $250, 000 in jewelry, a gun, and car keys from West while staying at West's home in Ohio. With assistance from Christopher Scott (“Scott”) and Marcus Freeman (“Freeman”), West launched a search for Day. In December 2005, Day was shot and killed while leaving a house in Detroit.
West, Freeman, and Scott were charged with and convicted of crimes related to Day's death. The Sixth Circuit reversed Freeman's conviction, holding that the trial court erroneously admitted improper lay testimony of FBI Agent Peter Lucas, a Government witness. United States v. Freeman, 730 F.3d 590 (6th Cir. 2013). The trial court vacated Scott's conviction following the Freeman decision; Scott's motion for a new trial was granted. West filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 requesting that the Court vacate, set, aside or correct his sentence. West then filed a motion for leave pursuant to Rule 15 to file a pre-judgment amendment to the pending §2255 Motion based on newly discovered evidence of perjury. West also filed a motion for discovery, pursuant to Rule 6 of the Rules Governing §2255 Proceedings, seeking trial and appellate counsels' personal notes, the pretrial investigator's notes, and medical records relating to Day's death. The Court denied all three of West's motions.
West now moves pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(h)(3) for reconsideration of this Court's decisions on all of his motions. West says the Court erred by: (1) finding that appellate counsel's failure to raise an issue of an unpreserved jury instruction did not render her ineffective; (2) concluding that trial counsel's failure to investigate three potential witnesses or otherwise prepare for trial did not result in prejudice within the meaning of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 691 (1984); (3) holding that trial counsel did seek a court ruling concerning the impact of a wiretap authorization; (4) finding that the proposed amendment to the §2255 petition, based on newly discovered evidence of perjury, did not relate back to West's §2255 Motion and was thus time-barred under Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(c)(2); and (5) applying the wrong standard in denying his motion for discovery.
West contends that these errors are palpable defects by which the Court has been misled, that if corrected, will result in a different disposition of his motions. The Court disagrees.
Local Rule 7.1(h)(3) provides the Court's standard of review for a motion for reconsideration:
“Generally, and without restricting the court's discretion, the court will not grant motions for ... reconsideration that merely present the same issues ruled upon by the court, either expressly or by reasonable implication. The movant must not only demonstrate a palpable defect by which the court and the parties and other persons entitled to be heard on the motion have been misled but also show that correcting the defect will result in a different disposition of the case.”
E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(h)(3). Palpable defects are those which are &ldquo;obvious, clear, unmistakable, manifest or plain.&rdquo; Mich. Dep&#39;t of Treasury v. Michalec, 181 F.Supp.2d 731, 734 (E.D. Mich. 2002). &ldquo;It is an exception to the norm for the Court to grant a motion for reconsideration.&rdquo; Maiberger v. City of Livonia, 724 F.Supp.2d 759, 780 (E.D. Mich. 2010). “[A]bsent a significant error that changes the outcome of a ruling on a ...