Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 63) — United States v. Kelli Prather, No. 1:21-CR-38 (Dkt. 65, S.D. Ohio)
Summary
Judge Matthew W. McFarland of the Southern District of Ohio denies Kelli Prather's Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 63) in Case No. 1:21-CR-38, in a three-page order filed 03/11/24; the Government had filed a Response in Opposition (Doc. 64). The order recounts that a jury found Prather guilty of Counts One through Fourteen of the Amended Superseding Indictment on July 25, 2023, and that the Court then ordered detention pending sentencing under 18 U.S.C. § 3143. Applying the Rule 59(e) standard, it finds that the motion presents no new evidence, cites no intervening authority and does not show that the Court erred. The Court therefore holds that it did not err in detaining Prather pending sentencing.
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 #: <pageID>
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 #: <pageID>
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 #: <pageID>
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-order-denying-motion-for-reconsideration-doc-63.pdf
- Size
- 1,474,968 bytes
- SHA-256
- 643afbee2a92dfc4dac6eef041570ac60aff1df7a4d058c16c92ed1a79e49f1b
- Original
- No public link identified.