Delva v. United States
- Jesse Furman
- 1:19-cv-03623
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Delva v. United States, Judge Furman denied Delva’s motion to reconsider denial of his sentence challenge.
David Delva, whose motion for reconsideration was denied; the United States was the responding party.
What happened
In Delva v. United States, David Delva asked the court to reconsider its earlier denial of his request to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence under federal law.
The court said Delva presented no valid grounds for reconsideration. It relied substantially on the reasons given in the government’s opposition and explained that reconsideration is not a way to relitigate old issues or receive a second hearing.
Judge Jesse M. Furman denied Delva’s motion for reconsideration. The clerk was directed to enter the order in both related docket numbers and mail a copy to Delva.
The detailed version
- Delva v. United States · No. 1:19-cv-03623
- Jesse Furman
- Aug. 28, 2020
Background
On May 7, 2020, the court denied David Delva’s motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a federal procedure allowing a person in federal custody to challenge a sentence. Delva then moved for reconsideration of that decision.
Court’s Analysis
The court held that Delva presented no valid grounds for reconsideration, substantially for the reasons stated in the government’s opposition. The court quoted the rule that reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy and generally requires the moving party to identify a controlling decision or important information that the court overlooked. It is not a vehicle for relitigating old issues, presenting new theories, obtaining a rehearing on the merits, or taking a second opportunity to make the same case.
Disposition
Judge Jesse M. Furman ordered that Delva’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED. The clerk was directed to enter the order on both docket numbers, 12-CR-802-4 and 19-CV-3623, and mail a copy to Delva.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.