Court filing

Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration of Order (Dkt. 136) — United States v. Evan Edwards (a/k/a Ian Heringa) and Joshua Edwards

No. 6:22-cr-00201-AGM-LHP · Doc. 140 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

Case 6:22-cr-00201-AGM-LHP Document140 _ Filed 03/26/24 Page 1 of 5 PagelD 667

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

ORLANDO DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
Plaintiff,

V. ' Case No. 6:22-cr-00201-WWB-LHP
EVAN EDWARDS,
Defendant. '
)

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER [DKT. 136]

COMES NOW, the Defendant, Evan Edwards [hereinafter “Defendant”], by
and through the undersigned counsel, and respectfully moves the Court to reconsider
its Order entered on March 18, 2024, in light of the text of the United States Bureau
of Prisons’ Forensic Report with respect to the Defendant, which report included an

express analysis of section 4241(d). In support thereof, the Defendant states as

follows:

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

1. On March 18, 2024, the Court accepted Magistrate Judge Leslie
Hoffman Price’s Report and Recommendation that the Defendant be committed to

the custody of the Attorney General for hospitalization and treatment to assess the

probability of the Defendant attaining capacity to permit the proceedings in this
Case 6:22-cr-00201-AGM-LHP Document140_ Filed 03/26/24 Page 2 of 5 PagelD 668

action to go forward. Dkt. 136.

2. Specifically in the Order, the Court states the following:

The Court is also not persuaded that the mere existence of a prognosis

in the initial report means that the issuing provider considered and

evaluated Defendant on the same basis as she would have if the

commitment had been made pursuant to subsection d or that she was

able to glean the same information in thirty days that she may in the

longer period applicable under subsection d. There is no reference to

subsection d in the report.

Dkt. 136, p. 5 (emphasis added).

3. Although the report, confessedly, was not generated in response to
Court-ordered restorability analysis under section 4241(d), the report does state,
after a lengthy recitation of the defendant’ mental state and with an eye to the
procedures under sec. 4241, the following: "a period of restoration to competency
pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 4241(d) is not indicated for Mr.
Edwards as he is not expected to benefit from educational interventions in light of
his neurological disorder." Bureau of Prisons Report, p.7.

4. It is of note that this report was generated by the same facility to which
this Court has ordered Mr. Evans to report for just such a restorability analysis. The
undersigned is mindful of the facially unambiguous statutory and case law germane
to this issue. Nevertheless, the facts support the contention that returning Mr. Evans

to the custody of the Bureau of Prisons would be a useless act. As a result of the

foregoing, the Defendant moves this Court to reconsider its Order committing the
Case 6:22-cr-00201-AGM-LHP Document140 _ Filed 03/26/24 Page 3 of 5 PagelD 669

Defendant to the custody of the Attorney General for the purpose of treatment to
assess the probability of the Defendant attaining capacity to permit the proceedings
in this action to go forward, given that the Bureau of Prisons has explicitly deemed
him unable to benefit from any further educational interventions in a restoration
period under 18 U.S.C. § 4241(d).

MEMORANDUM

In order to succeed on a motion for reconsideration, the movant “must
demonstrate why the court should reconsider its prior decision and ‘set forth facts or
law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior decision.’”

Florida Coll. of Osteopathic Med., Inc. v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 12 F. Supp.

2d 1306, 1308 (M.D. Fla. 1998) (quoting Cover v. Wal—Mart Stores, Inc., 148 F.R.D.
294, 295 (M.D. Fla. 1993)). Courts generally recognize three grounds justifying
reconsideration: (1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of
new evidence; and (3) the need to correct clear error or manifest injustice. Id. at 3.
Additionally, a motion for reconsideration should not be used to present the
Court with arguments already heard and dismissed, or to offer new legal theories or

evidence that could have been presented previously. See Arthur v. King, 500 F.3d

1335, 1343-44 (11th Cir. 2007); O’Neal v. Kennamer, 958 F.2d 1044, 1047 (11th

Cir. 1992); Pres. Endangered Areas of Cobb’s History, Inc. v. U.S. Army Corps of

Eng’rs, 916 F. Supp. 1557, 1560 (N.D. Ga. 1995), aff’d 87 F.3d 1242 (11th Cir.
Case 6:22-cr-00201-AGM-LHP Document140 _ Filed 03/26/24 Page 4 of 5 PagelD 670

1996) (“A motion for reconsideration is not an opportunity for the moving party and
their counsel to instruct the court on how the court ‘could have done it better’ the
first time.”’).

With respect to the Court’s ruling on March 18, 2024, the Defendant
respectfully states that the Court’s failure to acknowledge that the Bureau of Prisons
has examined the Defendant under 18 U.S.C. § 4241(d)’s requirements warrants
clear error. While the Defendant is mindful of the Court’s position that a longer
period of restorability treatment may still be necessary, the Defendant brings the
instant motion purely to shed light on the present, conflicting analyses. The Bureau
of Prisons medical evaluators have conclusively and unambiguously examined the
Defendant under 18 U.S.C. § 4241(d), determining that no further treatment is
warranted; however, the Court’s Order concludes that the Bureau of Prisons has not
conducted any examination of the Defendant under 18 U.S.C. § 4241(d).

As aresult of the foregoing, reconsideration by the Court is warranted in order
to ensure that proper deference to the Bureau of Prisons’ evaluation of the Defendant
is given.

WHEREFORE, the Defendant, by and through the undersigned counsel,

respectfully requests this Court to reconsider its Order of March 18, 2024, Docket

' The Defendant maintains its Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation,
Docket No. 117, and further states that the Bureau of Prison’s report should be given its due
deference, specifically that any period of restorability treatment under 18 U.S.C. § 4241(d) will
not benefit the Defendant nor improve his condition.

4
Case 6:22-cr-00201-AGM-LHP Document140_ Filed 03/26/24 Page 5 of5 PagelD 671

No. 136, to review the Bureau of Prisons’ explicit conclusion that the Defendant
would not benefit from a period of restoration to competency under 18 U.S.C. §
4241(d).

Respectfully submitted this 26" day of March, 2024.

s/A. Brian Phillips

A. BRIAN PHILLIPS, ESQ.

Fla. Bar No. 0067113

A. BRIAN PHILLIPS, P.A.

912 Highland Avenue

Orlando, Florida 32803

Telephone: (407) 872-0777

Telecopier: (407) 872-0704

Email: Brian.Phillips @ Phillips-Law-Firm.com
Counsel for Defendant Evan Edwards

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 26" day of March, 2024, I filed a copy of
the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court via the CM/ECF system. I further certify
that all parties to this case are equipped to receive service of documents via that

system.