AND NOW, this 5th day of August, 2010, upon consideration of the motion (Doc. 105) to "reopen the court decision entered on June 2, 2010[,]" filed by defendant Kwame Dwumaah ("Dwumaah"), and it appearing that Dwumaah requests that the court reconsider its order dated June 2, 2010, wherein the court denied Dwumaah's motions (Docs. 94, 96, and 98) to vacate his conviction, and it further appearing that the pending motion for reconsideration is untimely, see L.R. 7.10 ("Any motion for reconsideration or reargument must be accompanied by a supporting brief and filed within fourteen (14) days after the entry of the order concerned."), and the court finding that Dwumaah's arguments are without merit,*fn1 and the court concluding that Dwumaah has failed to show that reconsideration of the order in question is warranted, 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."), Abu-Jamal v. Horn, No. Civ. A. 99-5089, 2001 WL 1609761, at *9 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 18, 2001) (noting that a party may not invoke a motion for reconsideration "'as a means to reargue matters already argued and disposed of' or as an attempt to relitigate 'a point of disagreement between the Court and the litigant.'" ), Bhatnagar v. Surrendra Overseas Ltd., 52 F.3d 1220, 1231 (3d Cir. 1995) (rejecting a litigant's "classic attempt at a 'second bite at the apple'"), it is hereby ORDERED that the motion (Doc. 105) is DENIED.