USA v. CLARK

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 	)
)
v. 	) 	Criminal No. 25-77
)
WILLIAM CLARK 	)
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Defendant William Clark is charged in a one-count Indictment with possession of a firearm
and ammunition by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(e)(1).
(Docket No. 1). 	Relevant here, a person who is convicted of violating § 922(g) is potentially
subject to an enhanced penalty under § 924(e)(1) (the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”)),
which provides for imposition of a 15-year mandatory minimum sentence on a defendant who “has
three previous convictions . . . for a violent felony or a serious drug offense, or both, committed
on occasions different from one another.” 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1). The ACCA defines a “serious
drug offense” to include “an offense under State law, involving manufacturing, distributing, or
possessing with intent to manufacture or distribute, a controlled substance . . . for which a
maximum term of imprisonment of ten years or more is prescribed by law.” Id. § 924(e)(2)(A)(ii).
In a Memorandum Order dated January 5, 2026, the Court denied without prejudice
Defendant’s Motion to Strike/Dismiss Notice of Special Findings, wherein he argued that the
Notice of Special Findings contained in the Indictment should be stricken or dismissed because
his listed prior state drug trafficking convictions are legally insufficient as predicate offenses for
purposes of enhancing his sentence under the ACCA (the “January 2026 Memorandum Order”).
See United States v. Clark, Crim. No. 25-77, 2026 WL 20579 (W.D. Pa. Jan. 5, 2026). In summary,
the Court cited controlling Supreme Court and Third Circuit precedent holding that § 924(e) is a
Case 2:25-cr-00077-WSH Document 42 Filed 02/19/26 Page 1 of 4

2
sentencing enhancement, not a separate offense, and therefore ruled that the issue whether
Defendant qualifies for an enhanced sentence under the ACCA is premature given that he has not
been convicted of the charged felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition offense at a trial
or by entry of a guilty plea. (Id. at *2).
Presently before the Court is Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration of the January 2026
Memorandum Order, in which he contends that Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 7 and
12(b)(1), along with the Supreme Court’s decision in Erlinger v. United States, 602 U.S. 821
(2024), compel a decision now. (See Docket No. 34 at 8-9). In advancing this position, Defendant
also relies upon United States v. Slade, Crim. No. 23-254, 2025 WL 2977968 (W.D. Pa. Oct. 22,
2025), wherein another court in this District rendered a pretrial ruling on whether a defendant’s
prior convictions qualified as ACCA predicate offenses. 	(Docket No. 34 at 5-7, 9). 	The
Government filed a Response opposing Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration, and Defendant
subsequently filed a Reply thereto. (Docket Nos. 38, 39). After review of the parties’ briefing,
the Court finds that reconsideration is not warranted.
Initially, it is settled that a motion for reconsideration may be filed in a criminal case. See
United States v. Fiorelli, 337 F.3d 282, 286 (3d Cir. 2003). “A motion for reconsideration is not
to be used as a means to reargue matters already argued and disposed of or as an attempt to
relitigate a point of disagreement between the Court and the litigant.” Donegan v. Livingston, 877
F. Supp. 2d 212, 226 (M.D. Pa. 2012) (citation omitted). Therefore, the Court may grant a motion
for reconsideration only if the moving party shows: (1) an intervening change in the controlling
law; (2) the availability of new evidence which was not available when the court issued its order;
or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or fact or to prevent a manifest injustice. 	United
States v. Banks, Crim. No. 03-245, 2008 WL 5429620, at *1 (W.D. Pa. Dec. 31, 2008) (citing
Case 2:25-cr-00077-WSH Document 42 Filed 02/19/26 Page 2 of 4

3
Max’s Seafood Café by Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999)). In sum,
“motions for reconsideration should be granted sparingly and may not be used to rehash arguments
which have already been briefed by the parties and decided by the Court.” 	PBI Performance
Prods., Inc. v. NorFab Corp., 514 F. Supp. 2d 732, 743–44 (E.D. Pa. 2007) (citation omitted).
Defendant does not contend that reconsideration is warranted based on an intervening
change in the controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or because there is a need to correct
a clear error of law or fact. Rather, the crux of Defendant’s argument is that he will be prejudiced
if the Court does not issue a pretrial ruling whether he qualifies for an enhanced sentence under
the ACCA, (see generally Docket Nos. 34, 39), which the Court construes as requesting
reconsideration based on the need to prevent a manifest injustice. 	To that end, Defendant
previously contended that he will be prejudiced if he is uncertain whether he qualifies as an armed
career criminal because he will be unable to determine whether to proceed to trial or plead guilty.
(Docket No. 28 at 5-6). As the Court explained, “[e]ven without a pretrial determination from this
Court [regarding the ACCA’s applicability], Defendant is still able, with the assistance of counsel,
to determine his likely sentencing range, pursuant to statute and the guidelines, both with and
without the ACCA, and to use that information to negotiate a plea agreement.” Clark, 2026 WL
20579, at *1, n.1 (quoting United States v. Edwards, No. 1:16-CR-081, 2017 WL 606768, at *3
(S.D. Ohio Feb. 15, 2017)). Moreover, the Court made clear in the January 2026 Memorandum
Order that its ruling was without prejudice to Defendant challenging the applicability of the §
924(e)(1) sentencing enhancement should he later be convicted of the § 922(g)(1) offense charged
in the Indictment via a guilty plea or following a jury trial. (Id. at *2).
Case 2:25-cr-00077-WSH Document 42 Filed 02/19/26 Page 3 of 4

4
At bottom, Defendant reargues his position that the Court should rule now whether he
qualifies for an enhanced sentence under the ACCA.1 The Court already has determined that such
a ruling is premature at this time. In the Court’s estimation, Defendant has not advanced any basis
for this Court to reconsider its January 2026 Memorandum Order, other than his apparent
disagreement with the Court’s ruling. Reconsideration is not warranted on that basis. See United
States v. Pride, Crim. No. 16-68, 2021 WL 4340551, at *1 (W.D. Pa. Sept. 23, 2021) (“Motions
for reconsideration are not a tool to re-litigate and reargue issues which have already been
considered and disposed of by the Court, to express disagreement with the Court’s rulings, or for
addressing arguments that a party should have raised earlier.”) (citations omitted); Donegan, 877
F. Supp. 2d at 226. Accordingly, the Court enters the following Order:
AND NOW, this 19 th day of February, 2026, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that
Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration of the January 2026 Memorandum Order, (Docket No.
34), is DENIED.
s/ W. Scott Hardy
W. Scott Hardy
United States District Judge
cc/ecf: All counsel of record
1 	In rehashing this position, Defendant relies upon Slade, 2025 WL 2977968, wherein another court in this
District issued a pretrial ruling on whether a defendant’s prior convictions qualified as ACCA predicate offenses. (See
Docket Nos. 34 at 5-7, 9; 39 at 4). 	Defendant overlooks that this Court discussed Slade in the January 2026
Memorandum Order, stating that “[a]lthough the court in Slade opted to address the defendant’s challenge to the
ACCA’s applicability at the pretrial stage, it also commented that whether the defendant’s prior convictions are
‘serious drug offenses’ ‘may be determined pretrial, or it may be determined after a conviction.’ ” Clark, 2026 WL
20579, at *2, n.3 (quoting Slade, 2025 WL 2977968, at *3) (emphasis added). Consequently, Slade does not stand
for the proposition that a challenge to the ACCA’s applicability must or should be addressed pretrial.
Similarly, and as previously addressed, Defendant incorrectly relies on Erlinger, 602 U.S. 821, in support of
his contention that the Court should address his ACCA challenge now. See Clark, 2026 WL 20579, at *2, n.4. As
already explained, Erlinger held that the factfinder must determine beyond a reasonable doubt if prior offenses were
committed on separate occasions for purposes of the ACCA. 602 U.S. at 835.
Case 2:25-cr-00077-WSH Document 42 Filed 02/19/26 Page 4 of 4