United States District Court, W.D. New York
SHAWN M. SNYDER, Petitioner,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.
DECISION AND ORDER
WILLIAM M. SKRETNY United States District Judge
before this Court is Petitioner Shawn M. Snyder's motion
for relief under Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. (Docket No. 63.) Snyder seeks relief from this
Court's previous denial of his motion to set aside,
vacate, or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
(Docket No. 59.) For the reasons discussed below,
Snyder's motion is denied.
February 2, 2010, Snyder appeared before this Court, waived
indictment, and pleaded guilty to a 5-count Information
charging him with multiple violations of 18 U.S.C. §
2251 (a) (production of child pornography). Snyder's plea
agreement reflected his understanding that the maximum
penalty that could be imposed at sentencing included a
30-year term of imprisonment for each count. (Plea Agreement,
Docket No. 4, & 1.)
21, 2010, this Court sentenced Snyder to five consecutive
15-year terms of incarceration, one term for each count of
conviction, for an aggregate sentence of 75 years
imprisonment. (Docket No. 24.) Snyder thereafter appealed his
sentence as excessive. The Second Circuit affirmed, finding
that this Court properly considered all the relevant factors
under 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (a), including Snyder's
mental impairment and family history. See United States
v. Snyder, 425 F. App=x 64 (2d Cir. July 1, 2011).
then filed a ' 2255 motion on July 9, 2012, with
amendment and supplementation concluding on February 5, 2013.
(Docket Nos. 38, 47, 50.) After full briefing, this Court
denied Snyder's motion on March 31, 2014. (Docket No.
59.) Snyder appealed to the Second Circuit, which denied his
appeal on August 6, 2014. (Docket Nos. 60, 62.) According to
Snyder, he pursued all levels of review of the Second
Circuit's decision, culminating in the denial of his
petition for rehearing of the denial of his petition for writ
of certiorari on March 2, 2015. (Docket No. 63, p. 7.)
eight months later, on November 3, 2015, Snyder filed the
instant motion for relief under Rule 60. (Docket No. 63.)
Snyder maintains that he is entitled to relief from this
Court's decision denying his § 2255 motion because
this Court mistakenly relied on incorrect case law and failed
to address each of his arguments pertaining to the second
ground of his petition-ineffective assistance of counsel for
failure to file a motion to suppress evidence. (Docket No.
63, pp. 9, 10.)
permits a court to correct clerical mistakes, oversights, and
omissions, as well as relieve a party from a final judgment,
order, or proceeding. Fed.R.Civ.P. 60 (a) and (b). Under the
rule, relief from a final judgment, order, or proceeding may
be granted for the following reasons:
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable
diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for
a new trial under Rule 59(b);
(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic),
misrepresentation, or misconduct ...