United States v. Randolph, 2:14-cr-00032

Petitioner Aquilla Terrell Randolph pleaded guilty to wire fraud and aggravated identity theft and was sentenced to 68 months' imprisonment.
Randolph appealed his conviction and sentence; while that direct appeal was pending, he filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel.
Respondent moved to stay the § 2255 proceedings pending resolution of the direct appeal, arguing a § 2255 should not be adjudicated while a direct appeal is pending.
The magistrate judge granted the stay by Order dated February 18, 2016.
Randolph moved for reconsideration, arguing his appeal and § 2255 raise different issues (sentencing on appeal vs. ineffective-assistance in § 2255) and thus proceedings need not be stayed.
The Eleventh Circuit resolved Randolph’s direct appeal, Respondent filed a response to the § 2255 motion, and the court lifted the stay, denied the motion for reconsideration as moot, and granted Respondent’s motion for extension of time.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court should reconsider its stay of the § 2255 proceedings	Randolph: stay improper because appeal raises sentencing issues while § 2255 raises ineffective-assistance claims; no conflict, so proceedings can run concurrently	Respondent: stay appropriate because a pending direct appeal may render the § 2255 moot and § 2255 should not be resolved on merits while appeal is pending	Motion for reconsideration denied as moot; court found no clear error in prior stay and lift of stay now that appeal resolved
Whether the motion for reconsideration met the standard for reconsideration	Randolph: court erred by staying § 2255 despite distinct issues	Respondent: stay discretionally proper; reconsideration requires newly discovered evidence, intervening law, or clear error	Court held petitioner did not show newly discovered evidence, intervening law, or clear error; motion fails
Whether the stay should remain given the appeal's resolution	Randolph: N/A after appeal resolved	Respondent: requested additional time to respond to § 2255 and filed response	Court lifted stay, treated Respondent’s response as timely, and granted extension of time

Fla. Ass'n of Rehab. Facilities, Inc. v. State of Fla. Dep't of Health & Rehab. Servs., 225 F.3d 1208 (11th Cir. 2000) (district court has discretion on motions for reconsideration)
Bryan v. Murphy, 246 F. Supp. 2d 1256 (N.D. Ga. 2003) (grounds for reconsideration limited to new evidence, intervening law, or clear error)
United States v. Battle, 272 F. Supp. 2d 1354 (N.D. Ga. 2003) (an error is not ‘clear and obvious’ when issues are at least arguable)
Am. Home Assurance Co. v. Glenn Estess & Assoc., Inc., 763 F.2d 1237 (11th Cir. 1985) (standard on what constitutes ‘clear and obvious’ error)
Pres. Endangered Areas of Cobb's History, Inc. v. United States Army Corps of Eng'rs., 916 F. Supp. 1557 (N.D. Ga. 1995) (motions for reconsideration inappropriate to relitigate or repackage arguments)