D.N.M. allows motion to reconsider under implied authority and denies it

On defendant’s motion to reconsider the prior denial of the motion to suppress, the new evidence that defendant has doesn’t change the outcome. United States v. Thayer, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51255 (D.N.M. April 3, 2017).* The motion to reconsider in criminal cases is implied and well established in the Tenth Circuit:

Although the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure do not include specific provisions for a motion to reconsider, the Tenth Circuit has allowed such motions under common law and considerations of judicial economy recognized in United States v. Healy, 376 U.S. 75 (1964). See, e.g., United States v. Corey, 999 F.2d 493, 495 (10th Cir.1993). “Courts have evaluated motions to reconsider in criminal cases under the same standards governing a motion to alter or amend judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e).” United States v. Sims, 252 F. Supp. 2d 1255, 1260-61 (D.N.M. 2003). Consequently, the Court may grant reconsideration on any of the following grounds: an intervening change in controlling law, availability of new evidence, or the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. Id. see also Major v. Benton, 647 F.2d 110, 112 (10th Cir.1981). A motion for reconsideration “is not a second chance for the losing party to make its strongest case or to dress up arguments that previously failed.” Voelkel v. Gen. Motors Corp., 846 F.Supp. 1482, 1483 (D.Kan.), aff’d, 43 F.3d 1484 (10th Cir.1994). Stated differently, such motions are inappropriate if their purpose is merely to compel the reviewing court to revisit issues already addressed or to present new arguments or supporting facts that could have been offered originally. See Van Skiver v. United States, 952 F.2d 1241, 1243 (10th Cir.1991). “The decision to grant or deny a motion for reconsideration is committed to the reviewing court’s sound discretion.” Sims, 252 F. Supp. 2d at 1261 (citing Hancock v. City of Oklahoma City, 857 F.2d 1394, 1395 (10th Cir.1988)).