Opinion ID: 205887
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Pro Se Motion “To Revisit”

Text: In 2010, Robinson filed the pro se motion that is the subject of this appeal. Robinson again asked the district court “to revisit” whether the government had complied with § 851(a)’s notice requirements when it sent the § 851 notice to his trial counsel at the wrong address. The district court denied Robinson’s pro se motion, noting that Robinson had previously raised the claim in his § 2255 action, specifically in his Rule 59(e) motion for reconsideration, and that both the district 4 court and this Court had rejected it. The district court denied Robinson’s subsequent motion for reconsideration, purported filed pursuant to Rule 59(e). The district court denied the motion as improper, explaining that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure did not apply in a criminal action. The district court further stated that were the court to reconsider its previous ruling, it would not find any error because (1) the matter was previously litigated on the merits and denied; (2) this Court affirmed the denial; (3) Robinson had not alleged any newly discovered evidence or other circumstances suggesting that a manifest injustice would occur if the decision were not revisited; and (4) the application of res judicata would not be unjust. Robinson filed this appeal.