ORDER DENYING the Defendant' 31 Motion for Reconsideration of the 11 Order as to Carl… — USA v. Torjagbo (Dkt. 38)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia · No. 1:22-cr-00171-MLB-RDC · Doc. 38 · 2022-10-21 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA 
ATLANTA DIVISION 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 
 
v. 
 
CARL DELANO TORJAGBO, 
also known as 
Karl Lucius Delano, 
 
Defendant. 
 
 
 
CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 
1:22-cr-00171-MLB-RDC 
 
 
ORDER 
 
 
Before the Court is Defendant Carl Delano Torjagbo’s motion [Doc. 31] to 
reconsider the Court’s May 12, 2022 order of detention. [Doc. 11]. Although the 
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure do not specifically authorize motions for 
reconsideration, both the Supreme Court and [the United States Court of Appeals for 
the Eleventh Circuit] have permitted parties to file such motions in criminal cases. 
Serrano v. United States, 411 F. App’x 253, 255 (11th Cir. Jan. 26, 2011) (citing United 
States v. Phillips, 597 F.3d 1190, 1199-1200 (11th Cir. 2010)). In deciding motions for 
reconsideration in criminal cases, courts use the standards applicable to such motions 
filed in civil cases under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59. United States v. Brown, 
No. 3:18-CR-89-J-34JRK, 2019 WL 7067091, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 23, 2019). 
Generally, a motion for reconsideration should not be used to reiterate arguments that 
Case 1:22-cr-00171-MLB-RDC     Document 38     Filed 10/21/22     Page 1 of 2

2 
have been made previously, but such a motion should be reserved for extraordinary 
circumstances, such as the discovery of new evidence, an intervening development or 
change in the law, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent a manifest injustice. 
Adler v. Wallace Computer Servs., Inc., 202 F.R.D. 666, 675 (N.D. Ga. 2001). Courts 
should deny a motion for reconsideration that [does] nothing but ask the . . . court to 
reexamine an unfavorable ruling. Jacobs v. Tempur-Pedic Int’l, Inc., 626 F.3d 1327, 
1344 (11th Cir. 2010). Defendant Torjagbo’s motion does not satisfy the standard for 
permissible reconsideration motions, in that it alleges no facts which, if proven, would 
demonstrate that extraordinary circumstances exist to cause the Court to reconsider its 
order detaining Defendant. Accordingly, Defendant Torjagbo’s motion for 
reconsideration [Doc. 31] is DENIED.  
SO ORDERED, this _____ day of October, 2022. 
 ____________________________________ 
 LINDA T. WALKER 
 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 
21
Case 1:22-cr-00171-MLB-RDC     Document 38     Filed 10/21/22     Page 2 of 2

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.gand.303267.38.0.pdf

Size

248,701 bytes

SHA-256

2fc6eeb0e34bc28589185bd7c6377fafe5ebd117e5f22a326b1c1c18738df8a6

Our copy

gov.uscourts.gand.303267.38.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)