United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
October 7, 2005.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
ALBERTO DEJESUS RODRIGUEZ.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: CHRISTOPHER CONNER, District Judge
AND NOW, this 7th day of October, 2005, upon consideration of
the motion (Doc. 43) for reconsideration of the sentence imposed
upon the defendant in the above-captioned case, and it appearing
that the motion does not aver any manifest errors of law or fact,
or present any newly discovered evidence, see Harsco Corp. v.
Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir. 1985) ("The purpose of a
motion for reconsideration is to correct manifest errors of law
or fact or to present newly discovered evidence."); Dodge v.
Susquehanna Univ., 796 F. Supp. 829, 830 (M.D. Pa. 1992)
(cautioning that mere disagreement with the court does not
translate into a clear error of law); see also FED. R. CRIM. P.
35(a) (allowing court to correct a sentence "that resulted from
arithmetical, technical, or other clear error"), it is hereby
ORDERED that the motion (Doc. 43) for reconsideration is DENIED.
© 1992-2005 VersusLaw Inc.