United States District Court, N.D. Mississippi, Delta Division
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
GUIROLA, JR. CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
THE COURT is the Motion for Reconsideration 
filed by the petitioner Bobbie Louis Sandford pursuant to
Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) as to the denial of his Section 2255
Motion. After reviewing the Motion, the record in this
matter, and the applicable law, the Court finds that the
Motion for Reconsideration should be denied.
October 17, 2012, Sandford agreed to plead guilty to one
count of wire fraud and one count of money laundering
pursuant to a written plea agreement with the Government. He
also agreed to waive his right to appeal his sentence or to
attack his sentence collaterally under § 2255. Chief
Judge Sharion Aycock sentenced Sandford to 120 months
imprisonment and three years of supervised release. Sandford
appealed the sentence, but the Fifth Circuit affirmed. On
November 2, 2015, Sandford filed a Motion  under 28
U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence,
which this Court denied in an Order  entered on September
25, 2017. Sandford filed his Motion for Reconsideration on
October 19, 2017.
a second or successive § 2255 motion may be filed in the
district court, the movant must request from the Fifth
Circuit Court of Appeals an order authorizing the district
court to consider the motion. Williams v. Thaler,
602 F.3d 291, 301 (5th Cir. 2010); see also 28
U.S.C. § 2255(h); 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A) &
(C). A petitioner's failure to seek authorization from an
appellate court before filing a second or successive §
2255 motion “acts as a jurisdictional bar.”
Id. at 301 (quoting United States v. Key,
205 F.3d 773, 774 (5th Cir. 2000)).
this Court must first determine whether Sandford's Motion
is properly characterized as a Rule 59(e) Motion or an
unauthorized successive § 2255 motion. The Fifth Circuit
has held that the reasoning set forth in Gonzalez v.
Crosby, 545 U.S. 524 (2005), should be applied to make
this determination. Williams, 602 F.3d at 303-04.
Pursuant to this reasoning, “a motion that seeks to add
a new ground for relief” is an unauthorized successive
§ 2255 motion, as is “a motion that attacks the
federal court's previous resolution of a claim on the
merits . . . .” Id. at 302 (quoting
Gonzalez, 545 U.S. at 531-32). However, when a
motion “attacks, not the substance of the federal
court's resolution of a claim on the merits, but some
defect in the integrity of the federal habeas proceedings,
courts should not construe the motion as a second or
successive petition.” Id.
Motion for Reconsideration, Sandford primarily complains that
this Court entered an order requiring his former attorney to
file an affidavit and did not provide him with sufficient
time to respond to that affidavit. These arguments do not
pertain to the merits of this Court's decision and will
therefore be considered under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e).
Sandford's other arguments, which pertain to the merits
of this Court's determination, must be denied as a
Fifth Circuit has provided the following guidance for
considering Rule 59(e) motions:
A Rule 59(e) motion calls into question the correctness of a
judgment. . . . This Court has held that such a motion is not
the proper vehicle for rehashing evidence, legal theories, or
arguments that could have been offered or raised before the
entry of judgment. . . . Rather, Rule 59(e) serves the narrow
purpose of allowing a party to correct manifest errors of law
or fact or to present newly discovered evidence. . . .
Reconsideration of a judgment after its entry is an
extraordinary remedy that should be used sparingly.
Templet v. HydroChem Inc., 367 F.3d 473, 478-79 (5th
Cir. 2004) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).
The Fifth Circuit has instructed district courts considering
Rule 59(e) Motions “to strike the proper balance
between [two] competing interests” - “1) the need
to bring litigation to an end; and 2) the need to render just
decisions on the basis of all the facts.” Id.
to Sandford's assertions, it is not an extraordinary
event for the Court to enter an order requiring an attorney
to file an affidavit. It is the Court's standard practice
to enter such an order when a § 2255 Motion alleging
ineffective assistance of counsel has been filed.
Furthermore, the Court has reviewed Sandford's Response
 to the attorney affidavit and finds that it would not
have altered this Court's decision. Sandford was
essentially raising the same arguments that this Court
thoroughly addressed in its Orders [78, 79]. Since Sandford
failed to identify any manifest error of fact or law, his
Motion for Reconsideration is denied.
IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion
for Reconsideration  filed by the petitioner Bobbie Louis
Sandford is DENIED.