United States v. Speller
4:15-cr-00046
| E.D.N.C. | Apr 9, 2019Background
- Terry Lamont Speller pleaded guilty in August 2015 to health care fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1347) and monetary transactions in proceeds of health care fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1957) pursuant to a written plea agreement.
- He was sentenced in March 2016 to 240 months imprisonment, 3 years supervised release, a $200 special assessment, and restitution of $5,962,189.77; his direct appeal was dismissed under his appellate-waiver.
- Speller filed a § 2255 motion in June 2018 and received leave to file an amended § 2255 in October 2018.
- The government moved to dismiss the § 2255; Speller sought leave to file a second amended § 2255 and separately moved to reconsider the court’s February 14, 2019 denial of his request for copies of victim affidavits.
- The court considered: (1) Speller’s Rule 59(e) motion to reconsider denial of victim affidavits and (2) his motion for leave to amend his § 2255; the government did not oppose the amendment request.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Motion to reconsider denial of Victim affidavit access | Speller argued he has a First Amendment right to access victim affidavits and asked the court to reconsider its denial | Government argued denial was proper (court record does not show a contrary position needed to be asserted explicitly) | Denied — Speller failed to show intervening law, new evidence, or clear error/manifest injustice under Rule 59(e) |
| Motion for leave to file second amended § 2255 | Speller sought to add additional facts and claims to his § 2255 | Government did not oppose amendment; originally had moved to dismiss the prior § 2255 | Granted — court allowed amendment for good cause; government’s motion to dismiss denied as moot and ordered to respond under Rule 5 within 40 days |
Key Cases Cited
- Pacific Ins. Co. v. American Nat'l Fire Ins. Co., 148 F.3d 396 (4th Cir. 1998) (reconsideration under Rule 59(e) is an extraordinary remedy to be used sparingly)
- Robinson v. Wix Filtration Corp., LLC, 599 F.3d 403 (4th Cir. 2010) (articulates three bases for Rule 59(e) relief: intervening change in law, new evidence, or clear error/manifest injustice)
- Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231 (4th Cir. 1999) (leave to amend pleadings should be denied only for prejudice, bad faith, or futility)