On a claim-by-claim basis, when Pollard first knew the facts underlying each of his claims for ineffective assistance, including, without limitation, his claims based upon Hibey's failure to demand an evidentiary hearing on disputed issues at sentencing, and Hibey's failure to put the government to its proof on such issues. The reason for the failure of habeas counsel, Hamilton Fox III, to raise claims of ineffective assistance in the 1990 Motion despite Richard Hibey's numerous deficiencies at, during, and immediately after sentencing. The Court reached its conclusions, and made numerous factual determinations, without conducting an evidentiary hearing.ĭefendant respectfully submits that, upon reconsideration, the Court should conduct an evidentiary hearing at least with respect to the following fundamental factual determinations in the Opinion: The Court also found, in the alternative, that even if dismissal on that ground were inappropriate, the Court would have dismissed the Motion for Resentencing in any event based upon AEDPA's statute of limitations. As a result of finding that Pollard had failed to establish "cause" for failing to raise ineffective assistance in the 1990 Motion, the Court dismissed the Motion for Resentencing, ruling that Pollard is required to secure Court of Appeals' certification. Under prevailing case law, a showing of "cause" would have permitted the filing of the Motion for Resentencing without prior certification from the Court of Appeals, as required under AEDPA. The Court found that defendant had failed to establish "cause" for his failure, in a § 2255 motion filed in 1990 with different counsel, to raise at that time the issues of ineffective assistance of counsel that he raised, with new counsel, in his Motion for Resentencing filed in 2000. The Judgment dismissed, on procedural grounds, defendant's Motion for Resentencing filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Pollard, by his undersigned attorneys, moves for reconsideration of the Court's AugMemorandum Opinion (the "Opinion") and Judgment (the "Judgment"), or in the alternative, for issuance of a Certificate of Appealability pursuant to 28 U.S.C. OF THE COURT'S AUGMEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT,ĬERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. 
For more information about appeals, see our File an Appeal section.Legal Doc: Motion for Reconsideration or Issuance of Certificate of Appealability Legal Doc: Motion for Reconsideration or Issuance of Certificate of Appealability Filed October 5, 2001 If the judge rules against you on your motion, s/he may use it as an opportunity to make the ruling harder to appeal by strengthening his/her factual findings or legal analysis against your position. If you are considering also filing an appeal, however, talk to a lawyer about the pros and cons of filing a Motion for Reconsideration first. when new evidence is available that you were not able to present before the judge made a decision.when you believe the judge did not consider or properly examine certain evidence or correctly apply the law or.Depending on your state’s laws, a Motion for Reconsideration may be an option in the following situations: The most common type of post-trial motion is a Motion for Reconsideration in which you are asking the judge to reconsider his/her ruling and change one specific part of the court order or the court’s overall ruling.
SAMPLE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION DOC TRIAL
After a trial, there are several types of motions that can be filed to address possible trial errors.
0 kommentar(er)
