Opinion ID: 2824572
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: December 23, 2007 Motion for Reconsideration

Text: The district court construed the June 2007 letter from Winkles as a request regarding the filing of a motion for reconsideration. ER 14. It informed him that he was permitted to file such a motion. Id. On December 23, 2007, Winkles filed a document styled as an “[e]x parte application for appointment of counsel; and/or authorization to file a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.” Government’s Excerpts of Record (“GER”) 1. In part, Winkles asserted that he had been without his trial transcripts until April 2005, despite repeated requests to prison authorities to deliver materials which were in prison storage. GER 4–5. He did not realize the transcripts had been delivered in April until July or August 2005. Id. He stated that, after receiving the transcripts, he enlisted the help of a fellow inmate and submitted a motion for leave to amend in August or September 2005. GER 5, 29. Winkles did not attach the amended motion or discuss its contents. The district court construed Winkles’s filing as a motion for reconsideration and denied it on March 18, 2008. ER 6. UNITED STATES V. WINKLES 7 The court held that Winkles had not cited “what new evidence, if any, he has discovered from the transcripts that support the merits of his claims,” ER 9, and therefore, that no reason for reconsideration had been presented. Id.