IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
October 4, 2006
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
LONDON SMITH A/K/A SHAKIL MUHAMMAD,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: (Judge Conner)
AND NOW, this 4th day of October, 2006, upon consideration of defendant's pro se*fn1 motion to withdraw his guilty plea (Doc. 121),*fn2 seeking reconsideration of the order of court dated September 14, 2006 (Doc. 117), which denied defendant's previous motion to withdraw his guilty plea after conducting a hearing on the motion,*fn3 and it appearing that the instant motion merely repeats arguments from defendant's previous motion, see Waye v. First Citizen's Nat'l Bank, 846 F. Supp. 310, 314 (M.D. Pa. 1994) ("A motion for reconsideration is not to be used as a means to reargue matters already argued and disposed of."), and the court finding that there are no manifest errors of law or fact in the order and memorandum denying defendant's previous motion to withdraw his guilty plea (see Doc. 117), 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 . . . ."), it is hereby ORDERED that the motion to withdraw his guilty plea (Doc. 121) is CONSTRUED as a motion for reconsideration and is DENIED as so construed.
CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER United States District Judge