United States v. WEINSTEIN
3:11-cr-00701
D.N.J.Jul 10, 2014Background
- Defendant Eliyahu Weinstein filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s June 10, 2014 order that granted the Government’s motion to amend the judgment to add additional restitution and denied Weinstein’s request to reduce restitution.
- Local Civil Rule 7.1(i) (incorporated into the criminal rules) governs reconsideration and requires showing an intervening change in law, newly available evidence, or correction of clear error/manifest injustice.
- The Court summarized the heavy burden on a movant: reconsideration is not a vehicle to relitigate matters or reargue issues already decided.
- Weinstein argued the Government failed to prove victims’ entitlement to restitution by a preponderance of the evidence and that the Court failed to precisely identify the conduct constituting the offense of conviction, claiming the indictment/conspiracy had been narrowed.
- The Court previously found the Government met its burden and that the victims’ losses fell within the temporal and substantive scope of the conspiracy to which Weinstein pled guilty.
- Because Weinstein did not show changed law or new evidence and only reargued issues, the Court denied the reconsideration motion as not meeting Rule 7.1(i)’s standards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Government) | Defendant's Argument (Weinstein) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether reconsideration is warranted of the June 10, 2014 order amending judgment to add restitution | Order was correct; Government had shown by a preponderance that additional victims’ losses were within the conspiracy | Government failed to prove victims’ entitlement by a preponderance; court did not identify the offense conduct precisely; indictment/conspiracy was narrowed | Denied — Weinstein failed to meet Rule 7.1(i) standards; no changed law or new evidence; arguments merely rehash prior briefs |
| Standard for reconsideration under L. Civ. R. 7.1(i) | Reconsideration appropriate only for change in law, new evidence, or to correct clear error/manifest injustice | Seeks correction of alleged error in restitution findings | Court restated heavy burden and applied it; movant must show one of the narrow bases; Weinstein did not |
| Whether the Court overlooked controlling facts or law in its prior order | Prior order addressed and rejected Weinstein’s contentions that restitution was unsupported | Argues the Court overlooked need to define offense of conviction for restitution scope | Court found no overlooked issues; Weinstein only disagreed with analysis and raised matters already considered |
| Whether relief should be granted where movant merely disagrees with outcome | Relief is inappropriate when movant simply seeks a second bite at the apple | Asserts disagreement with restitution increase warrants reconsideration | Denied — disagreement alone is insufficient; appellate process is the remedy for mere disagreement |
Key Cases Cited
- Database America, Inc. v. Bellsouth Advertising & Pub. Corp., 825 F. Supp. 1216 (D.N.J. 1993) (describing grounds for reconsideration)
- North River Ins. Co. v. CIGNA Reinsurance Co., 52 F.3d 1194 (3d Cir. 1995) (reconsideration standards and finality principles)
- G–69 v. Degnan, 748 F. Supp. 274 (D.N.J. 1990) (movant cannot simply reassert previously rejected arguments)
- Carteret Savings Bank, F.A. v. Shushan, 721 F. Supp. 705 (D.N.J. 1989) (reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy)
- NL Industries, Inc. v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., 935 F. Supp. 513 (D.N.J. 1996) (reconsideration may not be used to relitigate old matters)
- Tishcio v. Bontex, Inc., 16 F. Supp. 2d 511 (D.N.J. 1998) (motions for reconsideration should not provide a second bite at the apple)
- Florham Park Chevron, Inc. v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 680 F. Supp. 159 (D.N.J. 1988) (disagreement with the court’s ruling is for appeal, not reconsideration)