Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Christie

United States District Court, D. Hawaii

December 21, 2017

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
SHERRYANNE L. CHRISTIE, FKA Sherryanne L. St. Cyr, Defendant.

          ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF COURT ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RELEASE PENDING REVIEW

          Leslie E. Kobayashi United States District Judge

         On August 15, 2017, this Court issued the Order Denying Petitioner's Motion for Release Pending Review (“8/15/17 Order”).[Dkt. no. 112.] Before the Court is Defendant/Petitioner Sherryanne L. Christie's (“Christie”) motion for reconsideration of the 8/15/17 Order (“Motion for Reconsideration”), filed on September 15, 2017. [Dkt. no. 116.] Plaintiff/Respondent United States of America (“the Government”) filed its memorandum in opposition on September 22, 2017, and Christie filed her reply on October 27, 2017. [Dkt. nos. 122, 123.] The Court has considered the Motion for Reconsideration as a non-hearing matter pursuant to Rule LR7.2(e) of the Local Rules of Practice of the United States District Court for the District of Hawai`i (“Local Rules”). Christie's Motion is hereby denied for the reasons set forth below.

         BACKGROUND

         The relevant background is set forth in the 8/15/17 Order, and only the portions relevant to the Motion for Reconsideration will be repeated here.

         On June 22, 2017, Christie filed a Motion for Release Pending Review (“Bail Motion”), [dkt. no. 93 (Bail Motion), 94 (Mem. in Supp. of Bail Motion), ] which was construed as a motion for release on bail pending the ultimate disposition of her Motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody (“§ 2255 Motion”), [filed 4/27/17 (dkt. no. 78)]. In the Bail Motion, Christie argued that there are extraordinary circumstances warranting bail pending review because, if this Court grants her § 2255 Motion, the charge that she was convicted of will be dismissed. In the 8/15/17 Order, this Court concluded that none of the grounds alleged in Christie's § 2255 Motion would automatically result in Christie avoiding all possibility of further incarceration for the charges against her. Thus, the Bail Motion effectively alleged that, if she prevails on one of the grounds asserted in her § 2255 Motion and she is resentenced, she may ultimately receive a sentence that is lower than the term of imprisonment she has already served. The Bail Motion was denied because this does not constitute the type of “extraordinary or exceptional circumstances” required for bail pending review of a § 2255 Motion. [8/15/17 Order at 6.]

         In the Motion for Reconsideration, Christie argues that, in concluding that none of the grounds asserted in the § 2255 Motion would automatically allow her to avoid all possibility of further incarceration for the charges against, this Court misconstrued the grounds in § 2255 Motion. She also argues that the 8/15/17 Order did not take into account material facts and violations of state and federal law, including government reaching, particularly by the County of Hawai`i Police Department. Christie states that, if she had known about these actions, she would not have pled guilty. According to the Motion for Reconsideration, if Christie prevails on the § 2255 Motion, she will file a 18 U.S.C. § 3504 motion to force the Government to disclose the violations of state and federal law, and she will file a 18 U.S.C. § 2515 motion to exclude the illegally obtained evidence.[1] Further, Christie argues that the government overreaching would support her entrapment defense at trial. Christie also contends that the government overreaching - which she contends rose to the intentional commission of federal and state crimes - constitutes extraordinary circumstances warranting release pending review.

         STANDARD

         Rule 12 of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for the United States District Courts (“§ 2255 Rules”) states: “The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, to the extent that they are not inconsistent with any statutory provisions or these rules, may be applied to a proceeding under these rules.” “Motions for reconsideration after a final order are available in § 2255 cases, ” pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) or 60(b). Vo v. United States, Civil No. 07-00052 ACK-BMK, 2007 WL 2893654, at *1 (D. Hawai`i Sept. 27, 2007) (citing United States v. Martin, 226 F.3d 1042, 1047 n.7 (9th Cir. 2000)). Further, “[m]otions for reconsideration in criminal cases are governed by the rules that govern equivalent motions in civil proceedings.” United States v. Hee, Cr. No. 14-00826 SOM, 2015 WL 6510345, at *11 (D. Hawai`i Oct. 27, 2015) (listing cases) (citations and quotation marks omitted); see also Crim. Local Rule LR12.3 (“Except as otherwise provided in these Local Criminal Rules, the General and Civil local rules are applicable to criminal cases.”).

         Therefore, Local Rule 60.1 applies to Christie's Motion for Reconsideration. Local Rule 60.1 states, in relevant part:

Motions seeking reconsideration of case-dispositive orders shall be governed by Fed.R.Civ.P. 59 or 60, as applicable. Motions for reconsideration of interlocutory orders may be brought only upon the following grounds:
(a) Discovery of new material facts not previously available;
(b) Intervening change in law;
(c) Manifest error of law or fact.
Motions asserted under Subsection (c) of this rule must be filed and served not more than fourteen (14) days after the ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.