1:12-cr-00103
W.D.N.Y.May 13, 2025Background
- Kenneth Pettway, Jr. was convicted in the Western District of New York of conspiracy to distribute 280 grams or more of crack cocaine.
- Pettway filed a second Rule 33 motion for a new trial, which was denied on both procedural and substantive grounds.
- He then moved for reconsideration, arguing the court misapplied the law concerning ineffective assistance of counsel and sufficiency of the evidence.
- The court applies the civil reconsideration standard to criminal cases, requiring new law, new evidence, or manifest injustice for relief.
- The court reviewed whether Pettway’s ineffective assistance and sufficiency arguments were adequately considered and whether reconsideration was appropriate.
Issues
| Issue | Pettway's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural Bar for New Trial Motion | Court misapplied excusable neglect; overlooked counsel's ineffectiveness at trial | No error; court already assessed excusable neglect factors | Motion remains procedurally barred; no excusable neglect |
| Ineffective Assistance of Counsel | Counsel failed to object to testimony, seek limiting instruction, and object to indictment issues | Ineffective assistance claims previously assessed and meritless | Arguments previously considered and rejected |
| Sufficiency of Evidence – Drug Quantity | Testimony insufficient to prove 280 grams; lacked specific quantities/dates | Circumstantial evidence sufficient; jury could reasonably infer quantities | Evidence was sufficient; verdict stands |
| Reconsideration Standard Met | Court overlooked or misinterpreted key arguments; clear error of law exists | No overlooked facts/law; no new evidence or manifest injustice | No basis for reconsideration; motion denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Virgin Atl. Airways, Ltd. v. Nat’l Mediation Bd., 956 F.2d 1245 (2d Cir. 1992) (sets standard for reconsideration in federal courts)
- Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255 (2d Cir. 1995) (reconsideration requires overlooked matters likely to alter the outcome)
- United States v. Pauling, 924 F.3d 649 (2d Cir. 2019) (evidence from which drug quantity can be inferred is sufficient)
- United States v. Archer, 977 F.3d 181 (2d Cir. 2020) (standard for new trial based on insufficiency of evidence)