United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Richmond Division
JEFFREY A. PLEASANT, Petitioner,
HAROLD W. CLARKE, Respondent.
ROBERT E. PAYNE, Senior District Judge.
Following a jury trial, this Court convicted Jeffrey A. Pleasant of two counts of interfering with commerce by threats or violence, two counts of carrying a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, two counts of possession of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence, and one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. See United States v. Pleasant, 31 F.Appx. 91, 92 (4th Cir. 2002). The Court sentenced Pleasant to 622 months of imprisonment. Id. By Memorandum Opinion and Order entered on April 22, 2003, the Court denied a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 filed by Pleasant. United States v. Pleasant, No. 3:00CR71 (E.D. Va. Apr. 22, 2003), ECF Nos. 93-94. Pleasant then filed the present Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 ("§ 2254 Petition"). By Memorandum Opinion and Order entered on May 22, 2015, the Court dismissed the § 2254 Petition as another frivolous attempt by Pleasant to challenge his federal convictions. On June 4, 2015, the Court received from Pleasant a motion seeking relief under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) ("Rule 59(e) Motion").
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit recognizes three grounds for relief under Rule 59(e): "(1) to accommodate an intervening change in controlling law; (2) to account for new evidence not available at trial; or (3) to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice." Hutchinson v. Staton, 994 F.2d 1076, 1081 (4th Cir. 1993) (citing Weyerhaeuser Corp. v. Koppers Co., 771 F.Supp. 1406, 1419 (D. Md. 1991); Atkins v. Marathon LeTourneau Co., 130 F.R.D. 625, 626 (S.D.Miss. 1990)). Pleasant apparently relies upon the third ground. Pleasant, however, fails to demonstrate that the dismissal of his action rested upon a clear error of law or that vacating that ...