Case Information
*1 Case 6:24-cr-00231-WWB-RMN Document 70 Filed 05/19/25 Page 1 of 2 PageID 361
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA VS. CASE NO: 6:24-cr-231-WWB-RMN GIOVANNI ISAI RAMIREZ REYES
/ ORDER
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration or Clarification (Doc. 61). Therein, Defendant argues that the Court erred in declining to consider the meaning of the term “damages” within 18 U.S.C. § 844(i). However, as the Court explained in its April 7, 2025 Order (Doc. 52), that issue was not fully briefed or squarely presented to the Court for resolution. ( Id. at 7–8). Contrary to Defendant’s assertion, how an argument is labeled and presented does, in fact, matter in giving both opposing counsel and this Court a full and fair opportunity to address the merits thereof. Defendant has not directed this Court to any legal authority for the proposition that Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12(d) requires the Court to distill every possible argument that could or should have been raised and issue a pretrial ruling on such questions. Nor did this Court raise an issue sua sponte . To the contrary, the Court declined to broadly construe an argument that was, at best, half raised in support of an entirely different conclusion and failed to properly frame the issue for resolution. Defendant is simply incorrect that the question of the plain meaning of “damages” was properly or fully briefed before this Court and, as the Court already explained, there is a material difference between the question that was presented and the issue that Defendant now argues. Therefore, Defendant’s request for reconsideration will be denied.
*2 Case 6:24-cr-00231-WWB-RMN Document 70 Filed 05/19/25 Page 2 of 2 PageID 362 With respect to Defendant’s request for clarification, it does not appear that Defendant is confused as to the Court’s prior holding and has not directed the Court to any ambiguity with respect to that holding. In fact, Defendant has cogently stated the holding of the April 7, 2025 Order, there is no de minimis defense but the Court was unable, on the arguments and record presented, to address the plain meaning of the term “damages” within the statute as that argument was not properly raised in Defendant’s motion. Therefore, Defendant’s request for clarification will also be denied. To the extent Defendant wishes to seek a pretrial determination on his plain meaning argument, he may do so by a properly filed motion that fully and squarely addresses that argument.
Therefore, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration or Clarification (Doc. 61) is DENIED . DONE AND ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on May 19, 2025. Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record
2