Opinion ID: 5232840
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Reconsideration Standard

Text: This court has imported the standard from Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) to decide motions for reconsideration, holding that “[a] motion to reconsider may be granted when the court has misapprehended the facts, a party’s position, or the law.” Christy, 739 F.3d at 539. The specific grounds which allow granting such motions include “(1) an intervening change in the controlling law, (2) new evidence previously unavailable, and (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” Id. But “[a] motion to reconsider is not a second chance for the losing party to make its strongest case or to dress up arguments that previously failed.” United States v. Huff, 782 F.3d 1221, 1224 (10th Cir. 2015). Thus, such motions “should not be used to revisit issues already addressed or advance arguments that could have been raised earlier.” Id. (quotation marks omitted). Mr. Warren argues the district court improperly applied this law in evaluating his motion for reconsideration, particularly in applying it without providing him notice of its intent to do so. He argues that because the Government “agree[d] to waive any procedural or timeliness bars to the [c]ourt’s reconsideration of Mr. Warren’s Motion,” the district court could not apply this standard to evaluate his motion. Appellant Br. at 11 (quoting ROA Vol. I at 263). We are not persuaded. The Government did waive any timeliness or procedural issues with Mr. Warren’s motion—including the seven-month delay in filing—but the Government did not 19 Appellate Case: 20-1436 Document: 010110628155 Date Filed: 01/06/2022 Page: 20 explicitly waive the applicable legal standard of review. Even if the Government had agreed to waive the applicable legal standards, it could not do so. It is the district court’s sole prerogative to decide the applicable law when considering a motion, and therefore the parties have no power to waive a standard of review. “It is one thing to allow parties to forfeit claims, defenses, or lines of argument; it would be quite another to allow parties to stipulate or bind us to application of an incorrect legal standard.” Gardner v. Galetka, 568 F.3d 862, 879 (10th Cir. 2009). Our law is clear that a motion for reconsideration may be granted only “when the court has misapprehended the facts, a party’s position, or the law.” Christy, 739 F.3d at 539. Therefore, the district court was required to apply this standard of review notwithstanding any alleged agreement from the parties to waive the applicable law. And Mr. Warren has not briefed any argument suggesting that his motion should have been granted under the applicable legal standard. We therefore affirm the district court’s application of the appropriate legal standard to Mr. Warren’s motion for reconsideration.