USA v. Meeks et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
United States v. Larry Aron Meeks, Jr.
Case No. 3:15-cr-00013-TMB-1
By: 	THE HONORABLE TIMOTHY M. BURGESS
PROCEEDINGS: 	ORDER FROM CHAMBERS
The matter comes before the Court on the Defendant Larry Aron Meeks, Jr.’s “Motion for
Reconsideration Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e)” (the “Motion”).1 Meeks seeks
reconsideration of this Court’s prior denial of his motion for compassionate release.2 For the
reasons discussed below, the Motion is DENIED.
As a threshold matter, the Motion was improperly filed as a “pro se motion” on behalf of Meeks
by the Assistant Federal Defender (“Counsel”) previously appointed to file Meeks’ motion for
compassionate release.3 In a “Notice Re: Filing of Defendant’s Pro Se Motion for Reconsideration
(“Notice”), Counsel explains that, after the Court denied Meeks’ motion for compassionate release,
“the Office of the Federal Defender advised Mr. Meeks that it would decline to prepare a motion
for reconsideration on his behalf at this time.”4 Counsel states that “the Office of the Federal Public
Defender intends to continue to serve and assist Mr. Meeks in an advisory role as he now pursues
reconsideration 	of 	compassionate 	release 	in 	a 	pro 	se 	capacity.”5 	Nonetheless, 	Counsel
electronically filed the present Motion, along with a Motion to File Exhibits Under Seal, and a
Notice of Filing Exhibits Under Seal.6 This practice does not comply with the Local Rules, which
require counsel to move for leave withdraw and prohibit a party from filing on their own behalf
until an order of withdrawal has been entered.7 Therefore, the Notice is STRICKEN for violation
of the Local Rules. Counsel shall continue to represent Meeks until an order of withdrawal is
entered.
1 Dkt. 134 (Motion).
2 Id.; see Dkt. 132 (Order).
3 Dkt. 133 (Notice re Filing).
4 Id. at 1.
5 Id.
6 Dkts. 134; 135 (Motion); 136 (Notice). In both the Motion to File Exhibits Under Seal and Notice
of Filing Exhibits Under Seal, Counsel represents that Meeks is filing said document “through
counsel”—not pro se—and submits the document as “Counsel for Mr. Meeks” or “Counsel for
Larry Meeks.”
7 L.Crim.R. 44.1; L.Civ.R. 11.1.
Case 3:15-cr-00013-TMB Document 137 Filed 08/26/20 Page 1 of 2

2
The Motion also suffers from procedural defects but ultimately lacks merit. First, Meeks files the
Motion seeking reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), which is inapposite.8
Instead, any motion for reconsideration in this case should have been filed pursuant to Local
Criminal Rule 47.1(g). However, the time to file such a motion has passed.9 Second, “[a] court
will ordinarily deny a motion for reconsideration absent a showing of one of the following: [A]
manifest error of the law or fact; [B] discovery of new material facts not previously available; or
[C] intervening change in the law.”10 Here, Defendant largely repeats his original contentions: that
his underlying health, in addition to his risk of reinfection for COVID-19, constitute extraordinary
and compelling reasons to warrant his compassionate release.11 Defendant neither cites a manifest
error of law or fact or an intervening change in the law. To the extent that Defendant now raises
“psychological distress” as a reason to warrant reconsideration, the Court is not persuaded that the
assertion is based on new material facts not previously available. That is, Defendant does not allege
that the circumstances of his incarceration at FCI Lompoc have changed since his prior motion for
compassionate release such that he did not experience “psychological distress” at the time he filed
the first motion.12 Third, in any event, psychological distress is not an extraordinary or compelling
reason to justify a sentence reduction. Therefore, Defendant has not established a basis for
reconsideration of the Court’s prior Order denying Defendant’s motion for compassionate release.
Accordingly, the Motion at Docket 134 is DENIED. The Notice at Docket 133 is STRICKEN.
The Motion to File Exhibits Under Seal at Docket 135 is GRANTED and the Notice of Filing
Exhibits Under Seal at Docket 136 is ACCEPTED as filed.
Entered at the direction of the Honorable Timothy M. Burgess, United States District Judge.
DATE: August 26, 2020.
8 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) permits a motion to alter or amend judgment within 28
days after the entry of the judgment in civil cases. Here, Meeks seeks reconsideration of the Court’s
Order denying to modify judgment in his criminal case.
9 L.Crim.R. 47.1(g)(2).
10 L.Crim.R. 47.1(g)(1).
11 See Dkt. 134 at 4‒7. Compare id. with Dkt. 121 (Motion).
12 In fact, the COVID-19 statistics at FCI Lompoc show that the outbreak has mitigated in recent
months. 	See 	Federal 	Bureau 	of 	Prisons, 	COVID-19 	Coronavirus,
https://www.bop.gov/coronavirus/ (last visited August 25, 2020) (tracking the number of COVID-
19 cases in BOP facilities on a daily basis).
Case 3:15-cr-00013-TMB Document 137 Filed 08/26/20 Page 2 of 2