United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR
V. PARKER U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Calvin Lavelle Boyd currently is charged in this case with
felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition in violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). On March 10, 2017, Defendant
filed a motion to suppress, which this Court denied in an
opinion and order entered May 5, 2017. (ECF No. 19.)
Presently before the Court is Defendant's motion for
reconsideration, filed August 21, 2017. (ECF No. 23.) The
government filed a response to the motion on August 22, 2017.
(ECF No. 25.)
7.1 of the Local Rules for the Eastern District of Michigan
provides the Court's standard of review when deciding a
motion for reconsideration:
Generally, and without restricting the court's
discretion, the court will not grant motions for rehearing or
reconsideration that merely present the same issues ruled
upon by the court, either expressly or by reasonable
implication. The movant must not only demonstrate a palpable
defect by which the court and the parties and other persons
entitled to be heard on the motion have been misled but also
show that correcting the defect will result in a different
disposition of the case.
E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(h)(3). Palpable defects are those that are
“obvious, clear, unmistakable, manifest or
plain.” Mich. Dep't of Treasury v.
Michalec, 181 F.Supp.2d 731, 734 (E.D. Mich. 2002).
“It is an exception to the norm for the Court to grant
a motion for reconsideration.” Maiberger v. City of
Livonia, 724 F.Supp.2d 759, 780 (E.D. Mich. 2010).
“[A] motion for reconsideration is not properly used as
a vehicle to re-hash old arguments or to advance positions
that could have been argued earlier but were not.”
Smith ex rel. Smith v. Mount Pleasant Pub. Sch., 298
F.Supp.2d 636, 637 (E.D. Mich. 2003) (citing Sault Ste.
Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians v. Engler, 146
F.3d 367, 374 (6th Cir.1998)).
motion for reconsideration, Defendant argues that the Court
erred in not conducting an evidentiary hearing to decide his
motion to suppress and in denying his motion. According to
Defendant, the Court erred in concluding that he did not
contest the facts justifying probable cause to stop and
search his vehicle.
claims that he contested the officers' assertions that he
repeatedly turned to look in the back seat and reached into
the back seat during the stop and that he appeared nervous.
Defendant additionally argues that no marijuana was found
during the search and he questions the officers' ability
to see inside the vehicle in light of the fact that they
claimed the windows were darkly tinted.
stated in the Court's May 5, 2017 decision, the Sixth
Circuit has held that “ ‘a defendant must make at
least some showing of contested facts to be entitled to [an
evidentiary hearing].' ” United States v.
Lawson, 476 F. App'x 644, 648 (6th Cir. 2012)
(quoting United States v. Giacalone, 853 F.2d 470,
483 (6th Cir. 1988)). Defendant has never contested the
officer's two asserted basis for initially stopping his
vehicle: illegal tinted windows in violation of Michigan
Compiled Laws Section 257.709 and a defective brake light in
violation of Michigan Compiled Laws Section 257.697. In his
motion to suppress, Defendant also never challenged the
officers' asserted reasons for ordering him out of the
car and conducting a pat-down search and then a dog
sniff-that being the time of the stop (1:00 a.m.),
Defendant's apparent nervousness, and the officers'
observations of Defendant repeatedly reaching and looking
into the back seat during the initial stop.
motion for reconsideration is not a vehicle for raising
arguments not raised before. In any event, Defendant does not
set forth factual allegations contradicting the officers'
observations. Instead, he makes only conclusory statements.
While Defendant now challenges the officers' ability to
see him making the asserted furtive movements due to the
tinted windows, the officers made their observations after
the vehicle was stopped, once the driver's window was
lowered, and as they were standing near the
The fact that no marijuana was seized from the vehicle
suggests nothing about the legality or illegality of the stop
and search, particularly when it is uncontested that a
digital scale with suspected marijuana residue was found in
the seat pouch behind the driver's seat.
these reasons, Defendant fails to demonstrate a palpable
defect in this Court's May 5, 2017 decision.
IT IS ORDERED that Defendant's motion
for reconsideration (ECF No. 25) is DENIED.
 According to Rule 7.1, motions for
reconsideration must be filed within fourteen days of the
order or judgment for which reconsideration is sought. E.D.
Mich. LR 7.1(h)(1). While Defendant filed his motion well
beyond this time limit, the Court granted him the opportunity
to file his ...