{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "5",
    "document_number": "Case 1:21-cr-01002-JB",
    "date": null,
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "1991) (“The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not recognize a ‘motion to reconsider.’ Instead, the rules allow a litigant subject to an adverse judgment to file either a motion to alter or amend the judgment . . . or a motion seeking relief from the judgment.”); Trujillo v. Bd. of Educ. of Albuquerque Pub. Sch., 212 F. App’x 760, 765 (10th Cir. 2007) (unpublished) (“A district court has discretion to revise interlocutory orders prior to entry of final judgment.”). Hence, “[w]hen a party seeks to obtain reconsideration of a non-final order, the motion is considered ‘an interlocutory motion invoking the district court’s general discretionary authority to review and revise interlocutory rulings prior to entry of final judgment.’” Wagner Equip. Co. v. Wood, 289 F.R.D. 347, 349 (D.N.M. 2013) (quoting Wagoner v. Wagoner, 938 F.2d 1120, 1122 n.1 (10th Cir. 1991)). The Court’s authority, then, is sustained by the pragmatic reality that a “district court should have the opportunity to correct alleged errors in its dispositions.” Christy, 739 F.3d at 539. Consequently, the district court enjoys “considerable discretion in ruling on a motion to reconsider.” Federated Towing & Recovery, LLC v. Praetorian Ins. Co., 283 F.R.D. 644, 651 (D.N.M. 2012) (citing Phelps v. Hamilton, 122 F.3d 1309, 1324 (10th Cir. 1997)). The scope of reconsideration, however, is narrowly cabined and far more limited than in an ordinary appeal. That is, a motion to reconsider is an “inappropriate vehicle[] to reargue an issue previously addressed by the court when the motion merely advances new arguments, or supporting facts which were available at the time of the original motion.” Servants of Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted). Rather, “[g]rounds warranting a motion to reconsider include (1) an intervening change in the controlling law, (2) new evidence previously unavailable, and (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” Id. Here, several pieces of previously unavailable evidence justify the request for reconsideration. Servants of Paraclete, 204 F.3d at 1012. First, when the Court denied Mr. 5 DOJ-OGR-00001295",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1991) (“The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not recognize a ‘motion to reconsider.’ Instead, the rules allow a litigant subject to an adverse judgment to file either a motion to alter or amend the judgment . . . or a motion seeking relief from the judgment.”); Trujillo v. Bd. of Educ. of Albuquerque Pub. Sch., 212 F. App’x 760, 765 (10th Cir. 2007) (unpublished) (“A district court has discretion to revise interlocutory orders prior to entry of final judgment.”). Hence, “[w]hen a party seeks to obtain reconsideration of a non-final order, the motion is considered ‘an interlocutory motion invoking the district court’s general discretionary authority to review and revise interlocutory rulings prior to entry of final judgment.’” Wagner Equip. Co. v. Wood, 289 F.R.D. 347, 349 (D.N.M. 2013) (quoting Wagoner v. Wagoner, 938 F.2d 1120, 1122 n.1 (10th Cir. 1991)). The Court’s authority, then, is sustained by the pragmatic reality that a “district court should have the opportunity to correct alleged errors in its dispositions.” Christy, 739 F.3d at 539. Consequently, the district court enjoys “considerable discretion in ruling on a motion to reconsider.” Federated Towing & Recovery, LLC v. Praetorian Ins. Co., 283 F.R.D. 644, 651 (D.N.M. 2012) (citing Phelps v. Hamilton, 122 F.3d 1309, 1324 (10th Cir. 1997)).",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The scope of reconsideration, however, is narrowly cabined and far more limited than in an ordinary appeal. That is, a motion to reconsider is an “inappropriate vehicle[] to reargue an issue previously addressed by the court when the motion merely advances new arguments, or supporting facts which were available at the time of the original motion.” Servants of Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted). Rather, “[g]rounds warranting a motion to reconsider include (1) an intervening change in the controlling law, (2) new evidence previously unavailable, and (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” Id.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Here, several pieces of previously unavailable evidence justify the request for reconsideration. Servants of Paraclete, 204 F.3d at 1012. First, when the Court denied Mr.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "5",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00001295",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Trujillo",
      "Wagoner",
      "Christy",
      "Phelps",
      "Hamilton",
      "Does"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Bd. of Educ. of Albuquerque Pub. Sch.",
      "Wagner Equip. Co.",
      "Federated Towing & Recovery, LLC",
      "Praetorian Ins. Co.",
      "Servants of Paraclete"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Albuquerque",
      "New Mexico",
      "D.N.M."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "1991",
      "2007",
      "2013",
      "1997",
      "2000",
      "2012"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 1:21-cr-01002-JB",
      "DOJ-OGR-00001295"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing discussing the rules and scope of motions to reconsider in the context of civil procedure. The text is dense with legal citations and references to case law. The document is well-formatted and legible."
}