UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
September 12, 2008
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
EFRAIN ROSA, DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Norman A. Mordue, Chief U.S. District Judge
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
Defendant herein has made two motions - one that requests that I recuse myself from consideration of this matter and the second which seeks reconsideration of this Court's previous denial of defendant's motion to suppress evidence. In connection with recusal, the Court has considered the arguments raised by defendant both in his papers and at the hearing on this matter conducted on September 12, 2008, and rejects them.
The Court finds that by any objective standard, my mere membership in the Tigris Shrine of which defendant's father was at one time CEO is not a factor which calls into question my impartiality. See 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). Insofar as the alleged "antagonism" surrounding defendant's father's leadership of the Tigris Shrine and the alleged passing on of information concerning defendant's arrest and prosecution in this case from unidentified Shrine member(s) to the organization's World Headquarters, I have no knowledge of or interest in these purported facts. Indeed, although I am a dues paying member of the Tigris Shrine, I have attended only two meetings in the last twenty-five (25) years. Moreover, I have no recollection of ever meeting defendant's father. Consequently, there is no evidence that actual bias on the part of the Court exists or that there would be an appearance of bias in my continued presiding over this case.
Regarding defendant's second motion, reconsideration is appropriate in light of an intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice. See Doe v. New York City Dep't of Social Servs., 709 F.2d 782, 789 (2d Cir. 1983). The decision whether to reopen a suppression hearing lies within the Court's discretion. See United States v. Bayless, 201 F.3d 116, 131-32 (2d Cir. 2000). In the present case, defendant has failed to raise new facts or law in his motion for reconsideration of this Court's denial of his motion for suppression. Rather, he relies solely on grounds raised previously and rejected expressly by the Court.
Based on the foregoing, it is hereby
ORDERED that defendant's application for my recusal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) is DENIED and it is further
ORDERED that defendant's motion for reconsideration of the Court's August 6, 2008, Order which denied his motion for suppression is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2008 VersusLaw Inc.