The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sylvia H. Rambo United States District Judge
By memorandum and order dated March 28, 2013 (Doc. 75), this court denied a motion filed by Healy pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. By order dated April 10, 2013 (Doc. 78), this court deemed Healy's reply brief to the government's response to be timely filed and granted reconsideration of the March 28, 2013 memorandum and order.*fn1 By memorandum and order dated April 15, 2013 (Doc. 79), this court reaffirmed its denial of Healy's § 2255 motion.
On April 26, 2013, Healy filed a motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) "to amend and alter judgment and motion for revocation of remand" (Doc. 80). Healy objects to this court's dismissal of certain claims labeled "new discovery." He claims that "a party may properly raise a new claim or defense . . . if the claim or defense arose out of conduct, transaction, or accurate [sic] set out -- or attempted to be set out -- in the original pleading." (Doc. 80 at p. 2.*fn2 ) Healy claims the "new discovery" was not available until after his initial brief was filed.
Healy sets forth the "new discovery" as follows:
Counsel was ineffective by representing conflicting interests that adversely affected his performance, advice, and loyalty to Mr. Healy. These conflicts denied Mr. Healy the benefit of competent counsel with effective professional advice.
A [S]ixth [A]mendment right to effective assistance of counsel may be violated when an actual conflict of interest adversely effects the adequacy of the defendant's representation.
A) Counsel failed to depose or cross examine Alfred Madeira and Thomas Ahrens.
B) Counsel failed to subpoena Alfred Madeira and Thomas Ahrens bank account statements.
C) Counsel failed to depose or cross examine any of the victims.
D) Counsel failed to subpoena any of the victims account statements.
E) Counsel failed to challenge the government regarding any baseless claims that were presented by Madeira and Ahrens.
F) Counsel failed to investigate how much money was sent to Madeira and Ahrens as well as how much they sent to Mr. Healy, as well as how much money Mr. Healy sent to Madeira and Ahrens.
G) Counsel failed to investigate how the monies Ahrens and Madeira raised:
1. What was promised from them.
2. Why their investors ...