Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 63) — No. 1:21-cr-00038 (Dkt. 65, S.D. Ohio)

Summary

Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration, Doc. 65 filed March 11, 2024 in United States v. Kelli Prather, Case No. 1:21-CR-38 in the Southern District of Ohio. On July 25, 2023 a jury found Prather guilty of Counts One through Fourteen of the Amended Superseding Indictment, and the court ordered her detained pending sentencing under 18 U.S.C. § 3143, finding no clear and convincing evidence that she was not likely to flee or pose a danger. Her motion for reconsideration (Doc. 63), opposed by the Government (Doc. 64), is reviewed under the Rule 59(e) standard, which requires a manifest error of law, newly discovered evidence or intervening authority. Judge Matthew W. McFarland finds she presents none of these and denies the motion.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

   Case: 1:21-cr-00038-MWM Doc #: 65 Filed: 03/11/24 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: 582



                     IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                      FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
                        WESTERN DIVISION - CINCINNATI

 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                          Case No. 1:21-CR-38

                      Plaintiff,                   Judge Matthew W. McFarland

               V.


 KELLI PRATHER,

                      Defendant.


         ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (Doc. 63)


       This matter is before the Court on Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration (Doc.

63). The Government has filed a Response in Opposition (Doc. 64). Thus, this matter is

ripe for the Court's review. Based on the following, Defendant's Motion for

Reconsideration (Doc. 63) is DENIED.

       On July 25, 2023, a jury found Defendant guilty of Counts One through Fourteen

of the Amended Superseding Indictment. (07/25/2023 Minute Entry.) Pursuant to 18

U.S.C. § 3143, the Court ordered Defendant to be detained pending sentencing, finding

that there was no clear and convincing evidence that Defendant was not likely to flee or

pose a danger to the safety of others. (07/26/2023 Notation Order.) Defendant now

moves for the Court to reconsider its decision to detain her pending sentencing. (See

Motion, Doc. 63.)

      "Neither the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure nor the Court's Local Criminal

Rules expressly provide an avenue for parties [in a criminal case] to seek reconsideration
  Case: 1:21-cr-00038-MWM Doc #: 65 Filed: 03/11/24 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: 583




of an order." United State v. Mathews, No. 2:19-CR-41, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22307, at *2

(S.D. Ohio Feb. 8, 2024). The Supreme Court has nevertheless held that criminal

defendants may file motions for reconsideration. See United States v. Ibarra, 502 U.S. 1, 6-

7 (1991). Motions for reconsideration in criminal cases are typically evaluated under the

same standard as a motion to alter or amend under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e).

See, e.g., United States v. Robinson, 5 F. Supp. 3d 933, 936 (S.D. Ohio 2014). A party moving

for reconsideration under Rule 59(e) must demonstrate one of the following: "(1) a

manifest error of law; (2) newly discovered evidence which was not available previously

to the parties; or (3) intervening authority." United States v. Salazar, No. 2:17-CR-179, 2019

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7903, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 16, 2019).

       Defendant does not present new evidence, cite to intervening authority, or

demonstrate that the Court erred in detaining her pending sentencing. (See Motion, Doc.

63.) Generally, a defendant found guilty of an offense and who is awaiting sentencing

must be detained unless the Court "finds by clear and convincing evidence that the

person is not likely to flee or pose a danger to the safety of any other person or the

community if released." 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a)(1). The Court found that there was no clear

and convincing evidence that Defendant was not a flight risk or likely to pose a danger

to others. (07/26/2023 Notation Order.) Defendant does not point to any new evidence

in her Motion for Reconsideration to change that finding. (See Motion, Doc. 63.) So, the

Court did not err in detaining Defendant pending sentencing.




                                             2
 Case: 1:21-cr-00038-MWM Doc #: 65 Filed: 03/11/24 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: 584




     Based on the foregoing, Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 63) is

DENIED.

     IT IS SO ORDERED.


                                          UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


                                      By5l;r)f;~~~
                                          JUDGE MATTHEW W. McFARLAND




                                      3


File and source

File

65.pdf

Size

1,380,513 bytes

SHA-256

69505b2e638dcc9fcc0f5d590fb2648cb9188a691aa2e5d6d674052710672ebd

Our copy

65.pdf

Original

No public link identified.